I wonder if there's a correlation between the number of games attended at the park and dislike of this move. I've attended 35+ games a season since 2000 and I hate it. Some of the strongest proponents of the change in this thread live hundreds of miles away from the park. That may be a true correlation. It also may be due to the fact that many of us farther away have watched as many Cub games or more in parks other than Wrigley. We are conditioned to the ads in these parks, so even with some signage at Wrigley it is still a purer experience than those other places. Furthermore, since we may only experience Wrigley once or twice a year at that, the team is far more important than the preservation of the ballpark. If the Cubs moved into a new park, I'd still want to make a yearly trip to see them at home. As I said earlier, I'd prefer no signage, but all in all, it doesn't make as much difference to me as the team on the field. Also, in regards to a new park. While the charm and nostalgia of Wrigley would be lost, a new park, if done right, could add much that might enhance a trip to a game.