PDA

View Full Version : Finally, someone comes up with a common sense idea about Wrigley


DumpJerry
11-18-2010, 07:18 AM
Tear it down. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-1118-chapman-20101118,0,677123.column)

RedHeadPaleHoser
11-18-2010, 07:29 AM
Would that same article get printed if the Trib still owned the Cubs? I think not.

Throw some netting in it to save concrete from killing someone, sell the "old time baseball/good time in the sun concept" and get those turnstiles spinnin'. Oh, wait - we don't own it anymore? Place is a ****ing wreck - bulldoze it.

Hysterical.

ewokpelts
11-18-2010, 08:40 AM
Tribsters KNEW that the city/state/county would say NO to rennovations/new stadium while they owned it.

LongLiveFisk
11-18-2010, 08:48 AM
Yes, tear down, rebuild on the same spot if you want but borrow Miller Park in the meantime. Work it out with the Brewers.

ewokpelts
11-18-2010, 08:56 AM
Yes, tear down, rebuild on the same spot if you want but borrow Miller Park in the meantime. Work it out with the Brewers.have them play at the cell. that way the tax money stays in chicago and illinois.

Ex-Chicagoan
11-18-2010, 09:31 AM
And of course, the Attendance Trophy is being trotted out by commenters to the story...

Red Barchetta
11-18-2010, 09:40 AM
I think it would take at least 2 years, maybe 3, for the Cubs to build a new ballpark at the site of Wrigley Field. Assuming they could start the demolition the first week of October :tongue:, demolish the park over the winter and begin building the following spring, I'm sure it would take at least two full seasons to raise a new ballpark in the model of Wrigley Field.

However, didn't the outfield bleachers get landmark status? Meaning a lot of political red tape to get anything changed? I'm not sure how much more difficult it would be to knock down everything but the bleachers/scoreboard and then build around them.

Plus, the "charm" of Wrigley that has been marketed over the years is that it is nestled in within a neighborhood community. How will the local businesses and neighbors react to such a project?

I can't see spending that type of money to renovate such an old structure. They will never win the "oldest ballpark" award now that Boston decided to keep Fenway, so they might as well move on.

The truth is that Ricketts should pursue a naming sponsorship similar to US Cellular. That would be his best financial solution, however the Cub purists will cry fowl over everything marketed now under the "Wrigleyville" brand. I guess they could come up with "ABC Corporation, owner of Wrigley Field home of the Chicago Cubs" or something stupid like that. :rolleyes:

bestkosher
11-18-2010, 10:10 AM
I agree tearing the dump down would be the best for them but putting it in its exact location would not be easy without buying up more land. With all the modern amenities and things wanted in a new stadium to make it viable for another extended period of time you would really need to create something larger than currently constructed. Doing just a rebuild with new kitchens and the like would be ok but not worth the investment and not worth the long haul.

LongLiveFisk
11-18-2010, 10:18 AM
have them play at the cell. that way the tax money stays in chicago and illinois.

I thought there was some stipulation that would not allow that because they are in two different leagues. My understanding is they'd have to play in another NL park, but if I am wrong I am sure someone here will correct me. :smile:

g0g0
11-18-2010, 10:20 AM
Don't tear it down - give it to the state as a landmark if they want it and built a new Wrigley somewhere else. The drunks will migrate.

Lip Man 1
11-18-2010, 10:25 AM
This has been debated on numerous threads here at WSI but the information I have is that JR has already told the Cubs in the past he would not allow them to use U.S. Cellular Field (nor should he...)

Lip

Hitmen77
11-18-2010, 10:53 AM
This has been debated on numerous threads here at WSI but the information I have is that JR has already told the Cubs in the past he would not allow them to use U.S. Cellular Field (nor should he...)

Lip

Yep, he'd be stupid to give a Cubs a nice convenient home for 2 years so that they can build a dream palace in Wrigleyville so that they can turn around and bury the Sox in the marketplace once it opens.

The Cubs did a great job of selling the idea of Wrigley as a "shrine" and making it a huge money maker for them. Now they can either a) spend their own riches to keep that place structurally sound or b) find another location in the city to build a modern ballpark.

Neither option is perfect, but I don't want to see the Sox help the Cubs get a perfect deal - which will then but the Sox at an even further disadvantage in in the Chicago market.

If the Cubs are all about playing in a historic stadium in a neighborhood choked with bars and rich young single people, then fine - the price of that is to deal with expensive ballpark maintenance costs and lack of modern amenities (the latter of which is what's wonderful about Wrigley according to many).

ewokpelts
11-18-2010, 10:58 AM
I think it would take at least 2 years, maybe 3, for the Cubs to build a new ballpark at the site of Wrigley Field. Assuming they could start the demolition the first week of October :tongue:, demolish the park over the winter and begin building the following spring, I'm sure it would take at least two full seasons to raise a new ballpark in the model of Wrigley Field.

However, didn't the outfield bleachers get landmark status? Meaning a lot of political red tape to get anything changed? I'm not sure how much more difficult it would be to knock down everything but the bleachers/scoreboard and then build around them.

Plus, the "charm" of Wrigley that has been marketed over the years is that it is nestled in within a neighborhood community. How will the local businesses and neighbors react to such a project?

I can't see spending that type of money to renovate such an old structure. They will never win the "oldest ballpark" award now that Boston decided to keep Fenway, so they might as well move on.

The truth is that Ricketts should pursue a naming sponsorship similar to US Cellular. That would be his best financial solution, however the Cub purists will cry fowl over everything marketed now under the "Wrigleyville" brand. I guess they could come up with "ABC Corporation, owner of Wrigley Field home of the Chicago Cubs" or something stupid like that. :rolleyes:the bleacher structure has already been rebuilt. no need to tear it down. the marquee, scoreboard, and outfield bleacher wall(with the ivy) ar elandmarked. the cubs can do anything they want to the rest of the structure.

ewokpelts
11-18-2010, 10:59 AM
This has been debated on numerous threads here at WSI but the information I have is that JR has already told the Cubs in the past he would not allow them to use U.S. Cellular Field (nor should he...)

Lip like i said before, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

sox being a good neighbor will help pave the road for US Cellular Field's replacement.

ewokpelts
11-18-2010, 11:02 AM
Yep, he'd be stupid to give a Cubs a nice convenient home for 2 years so that they can build a dream palace in Wrigleyville so that they can turn around and bury the Sox in the marketplace once it opens.

The Cubs did a great job of selling the idea of Wrigley as a "shrine" and making it a huge money maker for them. Now they can either a) spend their own riches to keep that place structurally sound or b) find another location in the city to build a modern ballpark.

Neither option is perfect, but I don't want to see the Sox help the Cubs get a perfect deal - which will then but the Sox at an even further disadvantage in in the Chicago market.

If the Cubs are all about playing in a historic stadium in a neighborhood choked with bars and rich young single people, then fine - the price of that is to deal with expensive ballpark maintenance costs and lack of modern amenities (the latter of which is what's wonderful about Wrigley according to many).i hate to break it to you, but the 2006 sox who won 90 games and were the defending world champions(and who had thier best year ever at the box office) were outdrawn by a 96 loss cub team that finished near the bottom of the standings.

it dosent matter what the sox do. the cubs will draw 3 million fans a year. might as well make a few bucks off the cubs

DumpJerry
11-18-2010, 11:02 AM
The Cubs could take two years off from playing baseball to have the new stadium built. Heck, they've already taken the last two years off from playing baseball.

beasly213
11-18-2010, 11:04 AM
I think it would take at least 2 years, maybe 3, for the Cubs to build a new ballpark at the site of Wrigley Field. Assuming they could start the demolition the first week of October :tongue:, demolish the park over the winter and begin building the following spring, I'm sure it would take at least two full seasons to raise a new ballpark in the model of Wrigley Field.

However, didn't the outfield bleachers get landmark status? Meaning a lot of political red tape to get anything changed? I'm not sure how much more difficult it would be to knock down everything but the bleachers/scoreboard and then build around them.

Plus, the "charm" of Wrigley that has been marketed over the years is that it is nestled in within a neighborhood community. How will the local businesses and neighbors react to such a project?

I can't see spending that type of money to renovate such an old structure. They will never win the "oldest ballpark" award now that Boston decided to keep Fenway, so they might as well move on.

The truth is that Ricketts should pursue a naming sponsorship similar to US Cellular. That would be his best financial solution, however the Cub purists will cry fowl over everything marketed now under the "Wrigleyville" brand. I guess they could come up with "ABC Corporation, owner of Wrigley Field home of the Chicago Cubs" or something stupid like that. :rolleyes:


I doubt the Cubs will ever sell the naming rights to Wrigley nor should they. They would then lose out on all the merch with the name "Wrigley Field" on it. Hats, Sweatshirts, T shirts, etc.

That is all money they don't have to share with MLB like they do with Cubs brand merch.

ewokpelts
11-18-2010, 11:05 AM
I doubt the Cubs will ever sell the naming rights to Wrigley nor should they. They would then lose out on all the merch with the name "Wrigley Field" on it. Hats, Sweatshirts, T shirts, etc.

That is all money they don't have to share with MLB like they do with Cubs brand merch.wrigley field is a trademark. and if it's sold on official cubs merch, the 29 other teams get a cut.

asindc
11-18-2010, 11:09 AM
i hate to break it to you, but the 2006 sox who won 90 games and were the defending world champions(and who had thier best year ever at the box office) were outdrawn by a 96 loss cub team that finished near the bottom of the standings.

it dosent matter what the sox do. the cubs will draw 3 million fans a year. might as well make a few bucks off the cubs

Short term, yes, it does not matter, but long term I believe it does. Sustained success will have longer term benefits than I believe most Sox fans realize. After all, winning cures all.

Hitmen77
11-18-2010, 11:19 AM
i hate to break it to you, but the 2006 sox who won 90 games and were the defending world champions(and who had thier best year ever at the box office) were outdrawn by a 96 loss cub team that finished near the bottom of the standings.



All the better reason not to help the Cubs get a brand-spanking-new golden goose.

russ99
11-18-2010, 11:23 AM
Interesting, some comments here are similar to those against Comiskey Park renovation back in the day.

I love our current ballpark, it's grown on me, but I'd trade it in a heartbeat for a fully renovated and modernized Comiskey Park.

It would be a shame if they do the same to Wrigley or any other old ballpark, tax money issues and Ricketts' cash grab aside.

ewokpelts
11-18-2010, 11:33 AM
Short term, yes, it does not matter, but long term I believe it does. Sustained success will have longer term benefits than I believe most Sox fans realize. After all, winning cures all.i am thinking long term. as in 2025, when the lease expires at the cell. sox will most likely be looking for a publicly fiananced replacement. and if they didnt play ball when the cubs got state money, it may hurt thier chances to get one.

i doubtthe state will be happy if the cubs got state money and had to play games out of state becuase jerry didnt play ball.

asindc
11-18-2010, 11:38 AM
i am thinking long term. as in 2025, when the lease expires at the cell. sox will most likely be looking for a publicly fiananced replacement. and if they didnt play ball when the cubs got state money, it may hurt thier chances to get one.

i doubtthe state will be happy if the cubs got state money and had to play games out of state becuase jerry didnt play ball.

I was responding to your statement that is does not matter what the Sox do because the Cubs will still outdraw them. Sustained success will change that equation for the long term, IMO.

ewokpelts
11-18-2010, 11:41 AM
I was responding to your statement that is does not matter what the Sox do because the Cubs will still outdraw them. Sustained success will change that equation for the long term, IMO.
and where is that sustained success?

asindc
11-18-2010, 11:51 AM
and where is that sustained success?

Not yet realized.

Hitmen77
11-18-2010, 11:56 AM
i am thinking long term. as in 2025, when the lease expires at the cell. sox will most likely be looking for a publicly fiananced replacement. and if they didnt play ball when the cubs got state money, it may hurt thier chances to get one.

i doubtthe state will be happy if the cubs got state money and had to play games out of state becuase jerry didnt play ball.

Do you really think the White Sox will be looking for a new stadium in 15 years?

Assuming for the sake of argument that they do, that's an interesting scenario. I just don't think it will come to that. If the Cubs get state money (and that's a big IF), they'll either fix up Wrigley within the constraints of having to keep playing there during renovations (most likely) or they'll just look for a new ballpark altogether (less likely).

And anyway, even if your unlikely scenario came true, JR will be 90 years old in 2025. The Sox will probably be under new ownership by then and the state won't have JR around to "punish".

Lip Man 1
11-18-2010, 11:58 AM
Ewok:

U.S. Cellular won't be replaced for another fifty years or so. That's so far off in the future that to plan a policy today that could hurt your opearation badly in the near future doesn't make a lot of business sense to me.

The "good neighbor" policy only works if all sides agree to abide by it. Let's just say the Tribune Company / Cubs have never been great friends to the White Sox franchise.

Published reports in the past have indicated that when it was time for the Sox to face the possibility of tearing down the original Comiskey Park, the Cubs immediated vetoed any thought of potentially allowing the Sox to play at Wrigley. It simply wasn't an option for them and it shouldn't be for the Sox either.

Lip

ewokpelts
11-18-2010, 12:06 PM
Ewok:

U.S. Cellular won't be replaced for another fifty years or so. That's so far off in the future that to plan a policy today that could hurt your opearation badly in the near future doesn't make a lot of business sense to me.

The "good neighbor" policy only works if all sides agree to abide by it. Let's just say the Tribune Company / Cubs have never been great friends to the White Sox franchise.

Published reports in the past have indicated that when it was time for the Sox to face the possibility of tearing down the original Comiskey Park, the Cubs immediated vetoed any thought of potentially allowing the Sox to play at Wrigley. It simply wasn't an option for them and it shouldn't be for the Sox either.

LipDo you honestly think the sox wont be looking for a new home sooner than later?

The Heat arent even 20 years old, and they are on thier 2nd home. Same with the magic.

Charlotte built two arenas for two separate NBA teams.

Sox will be playing in a new facility by 2033, the 100th anniversary of the ASG.

ewokpelts
11-18-2010, 12:07 PM
Not yet realized.get back to me when that happens.

Moses_Scurry
11-18-2010, 12:08 PM
Surely Wrigley field can't go on forever, right? What happens if, God forbid, an upper deck section collapses on the lower deck in the middle of the game? Is it reasonable to think that putting a band-aid on Wrigley will allow it to continue indefinitely?

Lip Man 1
11-18-2010, 12:14 PM
Ewok:

This is a question without an answer at least for me because I won't be around in 2033 but if I had to bet the rest of my life on the question I would say NO, the White Sox will not be in a new facility in 2033.

U.S. Cellular is structurally sound, portions of it are newer than the original construction and it is being very well maintained.

Also the next owner of the White Sox could be an indivudual or a company with the ability to build their own stadium without public funds...it's happened before (Miami Dolphins, San Francisco Giants), it could happen again...we have no way of knowing.

Lip

asindc
11-18-2010, 12:19 PM
get back to me when that happens.

I imagine that you will follow along with the rest of us. When it does happen, the landscape will change. Bet on it.

LITTLE NELL
11-18-2010, 12:35 PM
I say tear it down. Like someone posted earlier, Yankee Stadium was more sacred than the Urinal. IMHO in Chicago we already tore down a better sports venue when they demolished Chicago Stadium.

JB98
11-18-2010, 12:47 PM
I don't believe the White Sox will be looking for a replacement to U.S. Cellular Field in my lifetime. I'm 34 years old.

The ballpark we have now is going to stand for a long time. The notion that the Sox will be looking for a public money to replace USCF in 2025 is laughable to me. As we all know, the park has undergone a number of renovations in recent years. The park is in good shape, it has been maintained very well. It will still fit the team's needs 15 years from now, I'm sure.

I agree with JR's stance that there is no reason for the Sox to help the Cubs if they need some place to play while building a "new Wrigley" at Clark and Addison. **** 'em.

WhiteSox5187
11-18-2010, 01:08 PM
i hate to break it to you, but the 2006 sox who won 90 games and were the defending world champions(and who had thier best year ever at the box office) were outdrawn by a 96 loss cub team that finished near the bottom of the standings.

it dosent matter what the sox do. the cubs will draw 3 million fans a year. might as well make a few bucks off the cubs

No one would come to see a 96 loss Cub team at US Cellular, Wrigley Field is the reason people go to Cubs games when they have 90 loss teams and even that allure is fading as evidenced by the sparsely attended games in August and September of 2006, 2009 and 2010. THAT is why the Cubs will never tear down Wrigley. The Yankees draw so well because they are usually one of the best teams in baseball not because of old Yankee Stadium (which a lot of Yankee friends lost nostalgia for when it was redone in the 1970s). The Cubs brilliantly marketed their ballpark and practically ignored the team. If they lose the ballpark they will have to market the team and then they're screwed.

ewokpelts
11-18-2010, 01:22 PM
Ewok:

This is a question without an answer at least for me because I won't be around in 2033 but if I had to bet the rest of my life on the question I would say NO, the White Sox will not be in a new facility in 2033.

U.S. Cellular is structurally sound, portions of it are newer than the original construction and it is being very well maintained.

Also the next owner of the White Sox could be an indivudual or a company with the ability to build their own stadium without public funds...it's happened before (Miami Dolphins, San Francisco Giants), it could happen again...we have no way of knowing.

Liphow long did the kingdome last? or giants stadium?
how long did the padres stay at jack murphy stadium?
the sox, regardless who owns the team, will bw looking for a replacement facilty as thier current deal expires.

i should point out the original deal had the sox contractually comitted to New Comiskey Park till 2011(a 20 year conmtract). With only a 5 year extension attached to the original lease. So they could have occupied New Comiskey until 2016 and have no legal reason to stay there.
The only reason why they are locked in til 2025 is because they recieved the rennovation money via US Cellular's naming rights deal.

I have no illusions that they will be in a new park by 2033(a year they most likely host the All Star Game)

ewokpelts
11-18-2010, 01:25 PM
I imagine that you will follow along with the rest of us. When it does happen, the landscape will change. Bet on it.sox went back to "normal" within 2 years. in 2010, a team that won 88 games and competed for the playoffs saw fans openly calling for the Manager AND General Manger's heads.

Fenway
11-18-2010, 01:26 PM
I thought there was some stipulation that would not allow that because they are in two different leagues. My understanding is they'd have to play in another NL park, but if I am wrong I am sure someone here will correct me. :smile:

See NY Yankees - Shea Stadium 1974-75

asindc
11-18-2010, 01:38 PM
sox went back to "normal" within 2 years. in 2010, a team that won 88 games and competed for the playoffs saw fans openly calling for the Manager AND General Manger's heads.

None of which is inconsistent with my point, which is that if and when the Sox do manage some sustained success (i.e., 3 or 4 AL Pennants in a 5-6 year span with 2-3 WS victories in that time) it will shift the popularity landscape in the city. This the point I am making, to which you respond by saying the Sox haven't done it yet. And?

Nellie_Fox
11-18-2010, 01:49 PM
like i said before, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

sox being a good neighbor will help pave the road for US Cellular Field's replacement.
Lip is correct. The Cubs made it clear they would not allow the Sox to use Wrigley if they wanted to renovate Comiskey. Is that being held against them because they weren't a "good neighbor?" Screw them.

soxinem1
11-18-2010, 01:57 PM
I think it would take at least 2 years, maybe 3, for the Cubs to build a new ballpark at the site of Wrigley Field. Assuming they could start the demolition the first week of October :tongue:, demolish the park over the winter and begin building the following spring, I'm sure it would take at least two full seasons to raise a new ballpark in the model of Wrigley Field.

However, didn't the outfield bleachers get landmark status? Meaning a lot of political red tape to get anything changed? I'm not sure how much more difficult it would be to knock down everything but the bleachers/scoreboard and then build around them.

Plus, the "charm" of Wrigley that has been marketed over the years is that it is nestled in within a neighborhood community. How will the local businesses and neighbors react to such a project?

I can't see spending that type of money to renovate such an old structure. They will never win the "oldest ballpark" award now that Boston decided to keep Fenway, so they might as well move on.

The truth is that Ricketts should pursue a naming sponsorship similar to US Cellular. That would be his best financial solution, however the Cub purists will cry fowl over everything marketed now under the "Wrigleyville" brand. I guess they could come up with "ABC Corporation, owner of Wrigley Field home of the Chicago Cubs" or something stupid like that. :rolleyes:

A very simple solution would be to sell the naming rights to Wrigley Gum Co. Then nothing has to change, except:

'This double play brought to you by Wrigley's Doublemint Gum'.

'That diving spear was sponsored by Wrigley's Spearamint Gum'.

'Mike Quade is chewing out the umpire, which is sponsored in part by Wrigley's Chewing Gum'.

Hitmen77
11-18-2010, 01:58 PM
how long did the kingdome last? or giants stadium?
how long did the padres stay at jack murphy stadium?
the sox, regardless who owns the team, will bw looking for a replacement facilty as thier current deal expires.



The Kingdome and Jack Murphy Stadium were multipurpose facilities with the former being a fix roof, artificial surface stadium. Those are far from great indicators of The Cell's future.

A better comparison might be the baseball-only ballparks that have been built since 1962. Dodger Stadium ('62), Angel Stadium ('66), and Kaufmann Stadium ('73) aren't going anywhere. Each have been able to survive with renovations and nobody was clamoring for them to be replaced. The only MLB parks built in in the last 50 years that haven't lasted were all multipurpose and/or fixed roof facilities, which aged badly.

IMO, the current crop of baseball only parks in MLB are going to be here for a long time. We're not going to see a repeat of what we saw happen to the 70s-era cookie cutter stadium. Sure, the Sox will be looking for another round of renovations at some point, but that's different than suggesting that they'll be looking to abandon the Cell altogether.

I don't think ballpark location will be an issue either. In 1989, when ground was broken for the new park, 35th & Shields was far from an ideal location as the new park looked out on an expanse of housing projects. The neighborhood has really improved in the last 15 years and I can only imagine that it will be an even better location in another 15 years.

Fenway
11-18-2010, 02:05 PM
I feared for my life back in 2008 - That upper deck was shaking badly

kVEZSlA-dmo

SIGLMCkiYYI

Fenway
11-18-2010, 02:16 PM
This was a video the Red Sox put together 4-5 years ago about renovating Fenway

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6142239756326431569#


The Cubs didn't hire Janet Marie Smith partly because they didn't like what she told them...the upper deck needs to be REPLACED - the lower bowl is Ok however. She told them the park would need to be closed at least one season.

A very important difference in the two parks - Most of Fenway Park was rebuilt in 1934 when Tom Yawkey bought the club...

http://www.oldcitypics.com/boston/1934-fire-at-fenway-park-in-boston/

Lip Man 1
11-18-2010, 02:40 PM
Hitmen:

You beat me to the punch with your comments in reply to "good neighbor" (LOL :D:) Ewoks.,

Very well stated.

Lip

gobears1987
11-18-2010, 06:15 PM
I say tear it down. Like someone posted earlier, Yankee Stadium was more sacred than the Urinal. IMHO in Chicago we already tore down a better sports venue when they demolished Chicago Stadium.

Yankee Stadium hadn't be sacred since 1973. The stadium torn down after the 2008 season was not the same Yankee Stadium where Ruth, Gehrig, and DiMaggio played.

LITTLE NELL
11-18-2010, 07:31 PM
Yankee Stadium hadn't be sacred since 1973. The stadium torn down after the 2008 season was not the same Yankee Stadium where Ruth, Gehrig, and DiMaggio played.

The renovated Yankee Stadium from 1976 to 2008 hosted 10 World Series and the Bronx Bombers won 6 not to mention 8 more years in which they made the playoffs. Not too shabby.

FielderJones
11-19-2010, 12:23 PM
I wonder how much the skinflint Old Roman made from the Cubs in 1918 (http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1918/YPS_1918.htm).

thomas35forever
11-19-2010, 02:12 PM
I haven't read this whole thread, but here's my take.

I was too young to remember anything about the old Comiskey Park, so I have no emotional attachment to it. However, for those who still miss the park, what's happening with Wrigley right now is exactly what would have happened if they didn't build the current park. I read all about this during the summer.

Those who are opposed to the Cubs playing at the Cell, remember that the Yankees played at Shea Stadium during the one or two years the old Yankee Stadium was being renovated. I don't like the idea, but it makes the most sense. It's impossible to build a new ballpark for the Cubs on the current spot without tearing down Wrigley first. The only other option would be to tear down some of the neighborhood surrounding the ballpark now just like when those houses were torn down to make room for the Cell. Of course, that's only if the Cubs don't want to temporarily migrate somewhere else. Regardless, there's no way anyone would let that happen.

That said, the Ricketts family is in a real pickle here. They want to keep Wrigley, but I have a hard time believing taxpayers would want to fund renovations for it. If I'm not mistaken, the Cell was not built with taxpayer money. Nobody would do it either since folks in Addison rejected an initiative to build a new park there.

I'm glad I'm not the owner because I don't know what in God's name I would do.

doublem23
11-19-2010, 02:14 PM
If I'm not mistaken, the Cell was not built with taxpayer money.

You are mistaken.

Perhaps you are thinking of the United Center, which was 100% privately financed.

Nellie_Fox
11-19-2010, 03:05 PM
I haven't read this whole thread, but...See, that's the problem. You brought up points that have already been discussed.

I don't care about what "makes the most sense." The Cubs made it clear the Sox weren't welcome at Wrigley to allow renovation of old Comiskey. Screw them.

DumpJerry
11-19-2010, 04:04 PM
I'm glad I'm not the owner because I don't know what in God's name I would do.
I know what I would do.
http://newdelhi.usembassy.gov/uploads/k1/XN/k1XNE_miqvuGQzIZ14aP3w/consularmap2.JPG
It's kind of like Cricket.

thomas35forever
11-19-2010, 06:03 PM
I feared for my life back in 2008 - That upper deck was shaking badly

kVEZSlA-dmo

SIGLMCkiYYI
Oh I remember that night well. Up until the storm this past June, it was the longest my house had ever gone without power. I also remember I was at Wrigley for the game the next day.

Red Barchetta
11-20-2010, 10:33 AM
Wasn't there talk a few years ago about the Cubs (Tribune Co.?) buying some land a little further north as a potential site for a new ballpark? The current bleachers/scoreboard would remain as a city landmark with a park and condos built at the site of the current Wrigley Field. I envision more of a Ravinia-type development.

Believe me, if the day ever comes where the Cubs decided to build a new ballpark, the media hype around it will be incredible. I also would bet that any "New Wrigley Field" will be an exact replica, albiet larger, more modern, etc. of the current Wrigley Field. Ivy, bleachers, upper deck, sight lines, etc.

The ballpark is the ONLY reason that franchise sells 3M tickets each season. If they cannot duplicate that magic, they will not considering moving.

LongLiveFisk
11-20-2010, 10:37 AM
Maybe the Cubs should look at Addison.

Oh wait, too late. Dave & Buster's is there already. :tongue:

DumpJerry
11-20-2010, 02:38 PM
Wasn't there talk a few years ago about the Cubs (Tribune Co.?) buying some land a little further north as a potential site for a new ballpark? The current bleachers/scoreboard would remain as a city landmark with a park and condos built at the site of the current Wrigley Field. I envision more of a Ravinia-type development.

Believe me, if the day ever comes where the Cubs decided to build a new ballpark, the media hype around it will be incredible. I also would bet that any "New Wrigley Field" will be an exact replica, albiet larger, more modern, etc. of the current Wrigley Field. Ivy, bleachers, upper deck, sight lines, etc.

The ballpark is the ONLY reason that franchise sells 3M tickets each season. If they cannot duplicate that magic, they will not considering moving.
There isn't a large enough plot of land north of there in the city for a new park.

You're right, they would build a replica of Wrigley, plus a kitchen.

Fenway
11-20-2010, 02:45 PM
There isn't a large enough plot of land north of there in the city for a new park.

You're right, they would build a replica of Wrigley, plus a kitchen.

You could bulldoze Uptown :)

CLUBHOUSE KID
11-21-2010, 01:20 PM
Believe me, if the day ever comes where the Cubs decided to build a new ballpark, the media hype around it will be incredible. I also would bet that any "New Wrigley Field" will be an exact replica, albiet larger, more modern, etc. of the current Wrigley Field. Ivy, bleachers, upper deck, sight lines, etc.



So basically what the Yankees did for their new ballpark?

ewokpelts
11-22-2010, 10:21 AM
So basically what the Yankees did for their new ballpark?no. new yankee stadium is the death star of modern ballparks