As an out-of-town fan, I can confidently say that the desirability of seeing the Cubs play a home game in person declines markedly if they are located in bum [expletive] Illinois. The environment surrounding an urban ballpark is absolutely electric. Taking Wrigley out of the discussion for a moment, there is no comparison between parks in Cincinnati and Pittsburgh - purposely built in the densest points of their respective cities - and the parks in Atlanta and Arlington, TX, which were built where the land was cheapest (adjacent to their old parks and already under government control,) the Interstate ramps were wide and the parking plentiful. I reference these because I have visited all of them recently, and the experience is just better when the park is not bordered by miles of asphalt. The Cubs could not credibly play in a place like Schaumburg. It would be a joke, much like the Red Sox playing in a place like Foxboro or the Yankees taking up residence in the Meadowlands. It is too idiotic to even consider. There is an excellent reason why the majority of the new parks were built closer to their respective city centers than the parks they replaced. The suburban ballpark is a dinosaur in today's MLB, which has embraced Wrigleyville as the archetype for its ideal environs (if not Tunney as the ideal community partner.) The Rosemont proposition is straight out of the distant past.