I've been to both Miller & Wrigley many times. Yes, there are advantages & disadvantages. However, I'd still take Wrigley all things considered. Miller isn't really much more comfortable. The seats are still small & hard. The sight lines are better on the whole, but really unless you have good seats you will still be crooning your neck to see around someone's head, or be constantly shifting because people coming up & down the isles block your view. So I can't say it's really much better. Unless you pay extra for premium parking, you are still going to walk a good distance from your parking spot to the ballpark, over bridges & such. Even with premium parking, unless you get there 2 hours before the game it's still a good long walk. So that's not much better, if at all. Look, it's a baseball game. There's going to be crowds & congestion unless the team is terrible and nobody wants to see them. In which case the whole experience sucks anyway. I can probably park right next to the ballpark at a Marlins game. But I won't -- because I'd rather watch paint dry than go see the Marlins, and so would pretty much everyone else. The problem with a ballpark like Miller Park is exactly what you said -- it's out on this parcel with nothing around it. People try to compensate by tailgating. OK, fine -- but that just doesn't come close to the ambience of the surrounding area that you get with Wrigley. Think about it: would you rather sit out among smelly parked cars and throw bean bags, or spend some time in one of the best pre/post game club scenes in all of sports? I'll take the latter, thanks. In my world, the Cubs are doing exactly what they should do -- seeking to keep Wrigley's atmosphere & neighborhood experience intact, while improving it as much as they can. I used to want them to look at building a new ballpark. I've changed my opinion on that -- they need to stay in Wrigley, whatever hell they have to go through to get it done is fine. As for the complainers? /ignore.