baseballfan50

Looks this proposal of using tax credits is not going to be successful: http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/12/02/the-state-of-illinois-will-not-pay-for-wrigley-field-renovations/ http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/2938874,CST-NWS-wrig1202.article But the Cubs are not giving up: http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/12/plan-stalls-to-use-tax-dollars-to-renovate-wrigley.html I don't really understand why the city should have to pay for renovations on a privately-owned ballpark. Most ballparks which are paid for by a city are also partially or totally owned by that city and the team pays lease. At the same time, the city needs the Cubs, but the Cubs also need the city. It's a difficult situation.

I've browsed some articles about Wrigley and the replies. It seems like the majority of the responses are along the lines of "Wrigley's a cathedral of baseball! How could you tear it down?" to "Wrigley smells like urine/it's a dump!" It seems like most commenters I've read either really love or really hate Wrigley. I wasn't all that impressed with it myself, but I don't hate it. But I've just noticed Wrigley seems to be a place people either love or hate.

No, but the building could become an eyesore if the owners did nothing to maintain it. I'm pretty sure the city would not be happy with that, in fact, there are probably building code violations tied to it and if the stadium failed inspection, wouldn't the Cubs have to play somewhere else? The Rickettses could certainly get fined for that. I have a feeling if this battle starts up then it could get nasty and last a while, especially with all the red tape and legal talk involved.

I may be mistaken, but I don't think a building having landmark status entirely prevents its demolition. It makes demolition next to impossible, though. From my understanding, a building on the national register of historic places can get Federal rehab money. I think in Missouri an income-producing property (like a business) gets Federal and State tax credits, whereas a property that does not produce income (like a private residence) can only get Federal tax credits. If Illinois is similar in that, I would assume that Wrigley being on the historic register would qualify it for tax credits, but it also makes it more difficult (though not impossible if the right people approve it) to demolish it or make major changes. In St. Louis a building with historic status or in an historic district can be torn down, but demolition has to be approved by preservation board and aldermen and all of those boards and stuff. If that's the case in Chicago, tearing down Wrigley would not be impossible, but still very difficult. The different boards have to approve it and citizens certainly have the right to protest. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Soldier Field was on the historic landmark list until the renovations in 2001. In 2006 it was taken off the list because the owners changed the look so much that it was no longer considered historic. From my understanding, with the historic status, while you may get some tax credits or money to offset the costs, there are also very strict rules about what can and can't be done to the stadium, and demolition is next to impossible, though still legally possible. I'm not an expert in this, though, and I'm not sure about Illinois laws specifically. But the historic status kind of seems both positive and negative for the Rickettses, because it restricts what they can do. They have to tread carefully. Would the Rickettses let the stadium crumble if the city refused to pay for the renovations? I don't know. But if the Ricketts did do that and someone were to get hurt then the Rickettses would be responsible and the fans certainly wouldn't like it. It's not like the Cubs can threaten to move anywhere. This might be stalemate for a while. But it would make Wrigley's demolition very difficult. http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/teardowns/additional-resources/demolition_review.pdf http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/zlup/supp_info/demolition_delay.html If Ricketts pushed the right button and got public support, the city probably could not stop Wrigley from being demolished, but they could delay it. Still, the Rickettses would need everything to go their way,

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22297882/25909428 A new stadium doesn't have to cost a billion dollars (unless you're the Yankees) but I see his overall point.

Based on my non-expert opinion, you have to see whether he can actually teach the players anything or not. His past could be one strike against him, but McGwire is a hitting coach, so it's not the only criteria. To me, though, Bonds doesn't look like he would be good with the young players. I don't know him personally, though. And a team has to be willing to hire him. La Russa likes McGwire so he hired him. Before the season started McGwire addressed what he did (which everybody knew about) and apologized and took questions from reporters. After a while, people kind of didn't care as much because everything was out in the open. It didn't make what he did right, but it helped to clear the air. I would think if Bonds ever wants to get into baseball again (if he can) he has to admit what he did and face the media. That said, even before he apologized, McGwire probably wasn't as hated as Bonds because McGwire didn't break as many records and he retired in 2001 (I think?), so McGwire wasn't really in the limelight of suspicion as long as Bonds was. McGwire did retired, whereas Bonds kept playing and (most likely) kept juicing. Really, personality makes a big difference. Bonds comes across as arrogant, whereas notsomuch with McGwire, especially since he returned. The attitude of the potential coach makes a huge difference, because the best player is not necessarily the best coach.

I know Busch wouldn't make any sense because of the distance. Cincinnati is similar as far as distance. I would think Milwaukee or the Sox would be more likely to do it because of the proximity but also because the Brewers attendance is awful. Although ESPN puts the Brewers attendance higher than the Sox. The Cell would definitely make the most sense, as long as the Sox are willing to do it.

Well, money talks. I would doubt the Cardinals would do it, because our attendance is really good and we'd probably be plan C behind the Brewers and Sox, anyway. If you find a team that is desperate enough for revenue something could probably be worked out. Last time (and only time) I was at Miller we got $4 tickets and the place was half empty. So they might be willing to talk.

I wouldn't want Cubs home games at my home park (Busch). Even though it would mean a little more revenue, it would also not be popular. Having a large percentage of opposing fans at your park is annoying when the teams are playing each other. But having the Cubs play there regularly would be strange. And it wouldn't make sense. STL and Chicago are about 5 hours apart I think. The Cell would be easiest probably, if the Sox would cooperate. The Browns and Cardinals shares Sportsman's Park, so it can be done. Of course, nobody shares anything anymore. Milwaukee would be second-closest of course, but I can also imagine them not wanting to be taken over by Cubs fans. Cincinnati, St. Louis, and Detroit are each 4-5 hours away. Indianapolis is three hours,I think, but I'm not sure if they have any facilities that are big enough.

I'm not a big fan of suburban parks. Miller is out in open space. It's a nice park but it has a view of nothing and the area is bland. That said, I can understand that Wrigley is a cramped place. I've been there once. I didn't care for it. The ivy and stuff was neat but the park wasn't very that great. It's historic, but not very comfortable. And I could understand wanting to get away from the neighborhood's control. I'm just not a big fan of suburbs in general, but it definitely would make parking more efficient. So you have positives and negatives to the suburbs idea. Busch Stadium is kind of in between Wrigley and Miller as far as suburbanness. Busch is Downtown, but unfortunately Downtown has too much parking. That also means cheaper parking. But it's more urban because it does have MetroLink and density with the old buildings (a lot of lofts now). And it has a good view. Miller had no view at all. Busch has the hotels around and Scottrade and the Ed are each within a mile or so of Busch and each other, so that makes it convenient when visiting both. Soulard is a short drive south and there are a few other places with bars and clubs. The Downtown area has had a lot of new development and rehabs and revitalization, but it's still not the urbanists ideal like Chicago, obviously. Never will be, but St. Louis has its own identity. Anyway, Busch Stadium doesn't have Wrigleyville. Neither is it typical suburbia like Miller. It's good to have a some suburban qualities (like parking) and also the urban density. If the Cubs chose to move to a new area maybe they could find a place (city or county) with some good parking and space to move around but with the restaurants and bars like Wrigleyville. I wouldn't think a big empty space like Miller would be ideal, but I understand Wrigley is cramped. You would think if Wrigley moved the restaurants and bars would follow it. Although you don't want anything like our Ballpark Village fiasco either. I've always been fascinated with cities and ballparks and stuff. That said, unlike most ballpark enthusiasts, I haven't been to many parks yet and I didn't care for Wrigley.

From an outsider's perspective I can see both sides. 1) The Ricketts family is saying that it would not cost the city that much and the revenue it brought to the city would make up for it. I think they do have a point because Wrigley is very important. 2) The city is concerned about giving so much money to the Cubs. If the Cubs did not pay this back, what could the city do about it? A lot of newer parks that are financed by a city are also owned by it. So the city gets revenue from it for concerts and events. The city also gets taxes from the team. From my own research, it appears that the Cardinals, Cubs, Yankees, Red Sox, and Blue Jays are the only teams that actually own their own stadiums. Busch Stadium was mostly funded by the Cardinals (but I don't know all of the details. They are currently paying back the $45 million loan St. Louis County gave them). Yankee Stadium was also mostly financed by the owners of the team. The Blue Jays bought their stadium from the previous owners in 2005. Of course Fenway and Wrigley are obviously a lot older so you can't really compare them. I could see why the city would be cautious about paying that much for a stadium they don't technically own, even if they do get a lot of revenue from it. The city feels like the Ricketts are possibly trying to bully them, I'm sure. Politics plays a part here.

I don't think it's that big of a deal. He just received an award. As far as I can tell he's not involved in politics in any other way.

This Cardinal team is despicable this year. There's so much talent and they've wasted it all. It's a shame. They just weren't clicking. Trading Ludwick made it worse and Rasmus and Tony don't get along. Now Albert is involved.

I agree Milwaukee's lakefront is nice. St. Louis needs to have a better riverfront. Hopefully with the City to River project and the removal of I-70 Downtown that will improve that. The Downtown area is apparently a lot better than it was even around 1995. The public transit does leave a lot to be desired, though. That said, St. Louis is finally on the upswing. It's not perfect, but, from what I've seen, it has improved a lot. There's still a lot more to improve on (especially schools), though. St. Louis has its problems. That said, I don't think it's worse than most other cities the same size. It has some very pretty neighborhoods (and some not as pretty ones, mostly on the North Side). It has SLU and WASHU. The population has about leveled off (gained a few thousand people last year). Downtown has had a lot of renovated buildings since 1999 and construction is currently going on. I think the future is bright for St. Louis. But when talking about cities a lot of things are subjective anyway.

The Brewers and Cubs always seem to have our number. We play down to their level. I hope this team wakes up pretty soon. The players just seem so listless. The stupid trade for Feliz didn't help. Little update on the brawl, LaRue is likely going to be out the rest of the season with his concussion symptoms. As far as comparing cities, Chicago is in a league of its own. I've been there once, on two different days. It was a great trip. I wouldn't want to visit every year, though. Too expensive and crowded for my tastes. It was a once-in-a-lifetime experience. I don't plan to go back any time soon. Although I guess any place you visit on vacation is going to be more fun than any place you live at. I enjoy visiting St. Louis. I live three hours away, but St. Louis feels more like home than any other big city does to me. I like a lot of things about the city. Sure, St. Louis has its crime issues (some neighborhoods more than others), but I've never had any issues while visiting. I really enjoy Blues and Cardinals games. Busch Stadium is beautiful as well. Wrigley was historic (I visited a few weeks ago), but I like Busch Stadium better. For one, St. Louis feels more like home, surrounded by my fellow fans. On top of that, Wrigley just wasn't very comfortable. We were pretty close to the field even in the "cheap" seats, but I switched places with my Mom because the beam blocked my view of the batter. Wrigley was unique in a lot of ways, but climbing the ramps, finding concessions and bathrooms and the crampedness of it all didn't really appeal to me. I know this sounds like sacrilege, but I missed the video board that Busch has. It shows replays and the out of town scores and stuff. There were a few boards around Wrigley, but from where we sitting they were harder to see. We didn't really have the chance to see Wrigleyville. We don't drink much, though. Wrigley does have much more urban surroundings than Busch does. That's a good thing obviously. The stadium itself just wasn't that comfortable. Chicago obviously has a lot more to do. It's population is larger than that of the State of Missouri. I do enjoy visiting St. Louis, though. My teams are there and I like visiting the museums and stuff as well. I just like being there. It's a big enough city for me. We can go up for a weekend and find plenty to do. It's large enough that there's enough to do, but small enough that I can get a better idea where things are. Even if I live in Chicago, I'm not sure I would ever be able to find my way around very easily. St. Louis has its issues, but it has improved a lot (especially the Downtown area) in the last ten years. Construction is ongoing. I feel like St. Louis is going in the right direction. I don't know enough about Chicago to say if it's going in the right direction, but it seems to be doing fine. Miller Park was okay. The stadium looked nice. There wasn't really a view of anything, though. It was surrounded by parking. There were people tailgating as we entered. It was emptier (30,000 people there) and our tickets were $4 a piece for 8 seats together (we were surrounded by empty seats). It was a good experience. It didn't have the atmosphere that Wrigley and Busch have. The surroundings weren't as nice as either of those stadiums, though. Milwaukee was neat. We went to the Germanfest there. My four-year-old cousin was at Miller with us (not Wrigley, though). He spent half the game running up and down the aisle behind our seats and playing video games and on the playground. I know when we went to Busch Stadium with my disabled friend (she has difficulty walking) was given a ride after the stadium back down to the gates. Busch also has the elevators and escalators. Neither of them would have been able to visit Wrigley (my cousin couldn't sit still and my friend would have had a lot of difficulty getting in and out of the stadium). This doesn't necessarily make Wrigley bad. It's an older stadium so those things should be expected. I would expect Wrigley has a more limited fanbase, though. I couldn't imagine taking little rowdy kids to Wrigley. In fact, I didn't see many there. While they are gimmicky, the stuff for kids at Miller and Busch make it much easier for a family. Wrigley was nice in a lot of ways. I didn't get the awe-inspiring feeling there any more than I get it at any other stadium, though. The fans were friendly and the game was fun. Wrigley has a lot of unique attributes, but so does Busch Stadium. Wrigley does have better surroundings, and a much bigger city. Still, Busch Stadium is great, too. I'm not really the type that believes than an old stadium is necessarily better than all new ones. Stadiums just have to be judged on what they offer. We did have Chicago style pizza. It was 2/3 sauce and 1/3 cheese and the crust on bottom was as thin as regular pizza. It wasn't that impressed by it. I don't get the hype. I'm not fanatical about Imo's either (it's alright). I just wasn't that impressed by Gino's. We got bacon cheeseburger. It was sauce and cheese. No bacon or burger meat in sight. St. Louis is almost crazily fanatical about the Cardinals. The Blues have a good fanbase, too (especially after the debacle after the lockout). But the Cardinals are the main attraction. I really like this video. It kind of gives you an idea about the fanaticism. Warning, though, there is some Cub hate. :p The video along the right side about the Birds on a Bat is pretty interesting, too, especially if you like baseball history. There's quite a few videos there about the Cardinals and their history. It's pretty interesting to watch, though probably not as much from a Cubs fans perspective. I love baseball history, though. Obviously Chicago is crazy about their sports as well. I'm pretty sure Wrigley would fill up no matter what. The bit about the babies made me smile. I'm pretty sure the Cardinals were on in the hospital after I was born, too. Cardinal fandom is in my genes.