PDA

View Full Version : Carol Slezak writes about Wrigley attendance...


CuckTheFubs
10-01-2002, 10:44 AM
Great article by Carol Slezak (http://www.suntimes.com/output/slezak/cst-spt-carol01.html)

Cub off-field strategy not winning, either

October 1, 2002

BY CAROL SLEZAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

“The Cubs finished the season with 95 losses. Their .414 winning percentage was the National League's third worst. Thank goodness for Wrigley Field. The stadium drew 2.69 million this season, an average of 34,427 fans a game--eighth most in baseball...

“...In lieu of a competitive baseball team, the importance of a charming stadium cannot be overstated. The Cubs know this to be true. If not for Wrigley Field, the Cubs would be the White Sox...

"(Kiriazes) represents the interests of the people who live around Wrigley Field, the same folks who overwhelmingly passed a referendum that called for the Cubs to pay attention to community concerns--things such as parking, traffic, litter and yep, public urination... MacPhail came back in the room and said the Cubs would sock $100,000 away to help clean their mess..."

Cheryl
10-01-2002, 10:59 AM
It would be a better article if she'd noted it's not really a great stadium. It may have been at one time, but it's been remodeled maybe beyond the point of salvaging it.

CuckTheFubs
10-01-2002, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by Cheryl
It would be a better article if she'd noted it's not really a great stadium. It may have been at one time, but it's been remodeled maybe beyond the point of salvaging it.

The outside of Wrigley is ugly. It looks like a factory.

hold2dibber
10-01-2002, 11:44 AM
I've never fully understood the allure of Wrigley. I grew up just a few blocks from there, and went to a ton of Flubs games as a kid when I didn't know any better. But I always liked old Comiskey much better. In my opinion, Wrigley doesn't have the "small park" feel and charm that Fenway has and beyond that, what's the big deal? When I grew up around there (in the '70s), it was a largely middle-class Latino neighborhood and nobody thought of Wrigley as a baseball palace. Its revered status has much more to do with the gentrification of the neighborhood and the fact that it is old than with any real charm that the place exudes. Putting aside my disdain for the Flubs and trying to objectively assess the merits of that park, I simply don't get it.

duke of dorwood
10-01-2002, 11:53 AM
I dont either. Went there this year, first time in years, all I could think was "Ours is so much better inside"

DrCrawdad
10-01-2002, 12:15 PM
If some Cubbie fan tells you that Wrigley is better than old Comiskey. Remember that Wrigley (Wegham) was built after Comiskey. Wrigley was designed by the same architect that designed Comiskey. Comiskey was 4 years older yet it cost 3 times as much as Wrigley.

When Comiskey Park had 25,000-50,000, the palace rocked. It could get incredibly loud there. That is one thing that I remember most and miss the most at Comiskey II.

Comiskey Park
Opened: July 1, 1910
Capacity: 32,000 (1910); 52,000 (1927).
Architect: Zachary Taylor Davis; Osborn Engineering (1910)
Cost: $750,000

http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/american/comisk02.jpg

Overhead shot...
http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/american/comisk03.jpg

Wrigley Field
Tenant: Chicago Cubs (NL)
Opened: April 23, 1914
Architect: Zachary Taylor Davis (1914)
Cost: $250,000
Capacity: 14,000 (1914); 38,902 (1998).


http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/national/wrigle/image03.jpg

cheeses_h_rice
10-01-2002, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I've never fully understood the allure of Wrigley. I grew up just a few blocks from there, and went to a ton of Flubs games as a kid when I didn't know any better. But I always liked old Comiskey much better. In my opinion, Wrigley doesn't have the "small park" feel and charm that Fenway has and beyond that, what's the big deal? When I grew up around there (in the '70s), it was a largely middle-class Latino neighborhood and nobody thought of Wrigley as a baseball palace. Its revered status has much more to do with the gentrification of the neighborhood and the fact that it is old than with any real charm that the place exudes. Putting aside my disdain for the Flubs and trying to objectively assess the merits of that park, I simply don't get it.

A huge part of Wrigley's allure is the fact that it's smack-dab in the middle of a bustling city neighborhood. Sorry, but I have to agree with this being cooler than Comiskey with its acres of parking lots and nothingness surrounding it. Also, there are the buildings on Waveland and Sheffield, which used to seem charming back in the days before corporations bought up the buildings and/or rooftops and institutionalized the practice of rooftop viewing. I used to watch Flub games as a kid, and always was intrigued by that one building on Waveland that has the Budweiser logo painted on its roof -- for some reason, I used to think that the TV announcers were inside those little windows on the second floor. Also, the outfield wall made of brick and covered with ivy and the manual scoreboard are nice retro touches that seem a lot cooler today simply in comparison to modern ballparks. I think the appeal of Wrigley to many is what it ain't vs. how many parks have changed in the last 15 years.

As far as the actual overall baseball experience, I find Wrigley to just to be too small and too cramped, with a certain dank mustiness to the walkways and halls. It's a nice diversion once or twice a year, but if I had to go there 20 times a year, I think I'd lose my mind.

Cheryl
10-01-2002, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
A huge part of Wrigley's allure is the fact that it's smack-dab in the middle of a bustling city neighborhood. Sorry, but I have to agree with this being cooler than Comiskey with its acres of parking lots and nothingness surrounding it.

That's my major complaint about the new park. The lots. I know there wasnt much there to begin with (except, you know people's homes and MCuddy's). But I really hate the parking lots.

The outside of Wrigely is just horrible. If the Trib was serious about the place, they'd do something about that. Pick a year and restore it to what it looked like then.

Iwritecode
10-01-2002, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by Cheryl
That's my major complaint about the new park. The lots. I know there wasnt much there to begin with (except, you know people's homes and MCuddy's). But I really hate the parking lots.

That's one of the things I like a lot better about Comiskey compared to Wrigley. There are actual parking lots! At Wrigley, you either have to pay 20 bucks to squeeze into a parking spot (then you can't leave after the game until the cars around you leave) or park 3 miles away and walk. At Comiskey you can pay 12 bucks is it? and pull into a real parking lot right next to the staduim.

cheeses_h_rice
10-01-2002, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
At Comiskey you can pay 12 bucks is it? and pull into a real parking lot right next to the staduim.

$13 at Comiskey.

At Miller Park, you can pull in and park for just $6, which is much more reasonable, IMO.

DrCrawdad
10-01-2002, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
That's one of the things I like a lot better about Comiskey compared to Wrigley. There are actual parking lots! At Wrigley, you either have to pay 20 bucks to squeeze into a parking spot (then you can't leave after the game until the cars around you leave) or park 3 miles away and walk. At Comiskey you can pay 12 bucks is it? and pull into a real parking lot right next to the staduim.

$13

Cheryl
10-01-2002, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
That's one of the things I like a lot better about Comiskey compared to Wrigley. There are actual parking lots! At Wrigley, you either have to pay 20 bucks to squeeze into a parking spot (then you can't leave after the game until the cars around you leave) or park 3 miles away and walk. At Comiskey you can pay 12 bucks is it? and pull into a real parking lot right next to the staduim.

You don't have to walk. You can take a bus from the remote lots.

This is one of the things they did right at Camden. Remote lots.

longshot7
10-01-2002, 02:06 PM
sorry, but stadium-wise, I like Wrigley - it's more old school. if wasn't inhabited by the @#$&#! Cubs, it might be my fav park.

but comiskey does have parking lots, so that's good.

Dodger Stadium is pretty nice too.

Kilroy
10-01-2002, 02:19 PM
Sorry, but creature comfort is the key for me. Especially since I'm the creature. Wrigley doesn't have much of it, that's for sure. I like being able to drive my own car, park, and walk for not more than 5 minutes to get into the park. It may cost $13, but compared to $20-$25 to park not too close to the park in Gumville, I'll take it. And it's true, you can park for $6 at Miller Park. But they have something else that Comiskey doesn't have. $75 seats. Comiskey's best seats, cost $28. Same seats in the Cheese Temple of Doom cost $75. I think that kinda negates the parking discount, don't you?

bc2k
10-01-2002, 02:26 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DrCrawdad
[B]
[B]

http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/american/comisk02.jpg


That's a beautiful picture of Comiskey DrC, but when and why did they paint it white?

Cheryl
10-01-2002, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
Sorry, but creature comfort is the key for me. Especially since I'm the creature. Wrigley doesn't have much of it, that's for sure. I like being able to drive my own car, park, and walk for not more than 5 minutes to get into the park.

I don't expect agreement, but IMO the lots spoil the look of the place. Park your car elsewhere, take a shuttle to the park.

OTOH, creature comforts. CPII has Wrigley beat there for sure. I'm old enough to appreciate back support even i the bleachers. And as all women who remember the old park can attest--BATHROOMS! Lots of them, lots of stalls. I'm not missing half a game because I'm standing in line at the one ladies room per deck at the old place.

Iwritecode
10-01-2002, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Cheryl
I don't expect agreement, but IMO the lots spoil the look of the place. Park your car elsewhere, take a shuttle to the park.

OTOH, creature comforts. CPII has Wrigley beat there for sure. I'm old enough to appreciate back support even i the bleachers. And as all women who remember the old park can attest--BATHROOMS! Lots of them, lots of stalls. I'm not missing half a game because I'm standing in line at the one ladies room per deck at the old place.

How much does it cost for a shuttle? Does it cost per person? Like with Comiskey, you can come in with a carload of people and still only pay $13. I care more about cost than anything.

Cheryl
10-01-2002, 03:15 PM
The shuttle to the Urinal from the Lane Tech/DeVry lots is a CTA bus, so that's $1.50 a head if they're charging standard fare. So $3 round trip.

I could be wrong about this, but I don't remember paying anything to get to/from Camden from the remote lots.

DrCrawdad
10-01-2002, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DrCrawdad
[B]
[B]

http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/american/comisk02.jpg


That's a beautiful picture of Comiskey DrC, but when and why did they paint it white?

There have been posts about this here in the past. IIRC it was during the first Veeck-era.

Ballparks.com page on old Comiskey. (http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/american/comisk.htm)

The detail on the unpainted brick was really cool. Painting it was a mistake on the part of Veeck. But then not everything Veeck thought of was good, such as the shorts.

Blueprint1
10-01-2002, 03:45 PM
The worst thing about Wrigley is the sight lines. I had very "good" tickets to the first Sox Cubs game at Wrigley field this year. Everytime vedor passed by or someone got up my entire view of homeplate was blocked. I didnt see half the pitches thrown the entire game. At Comiskey the seats are stacked so that the vendors dont get in your way. Most people I know from outside of Chicago are disapointed by Wrigley when they go there. I think that the Chicago media really hypes up the stadium so that we all think its great. There is a reason why most older stadiums were destoryed.

Cheryl
10-01-2002, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad
There have been posts about this here in the past. IIRC it was during the first Veeck-era.

The detail on the unpainted brick was really cool. Painting it was a mistake on the part of Veeck. But then not everything Veeck thought of was good, such as the shorts.

I don't remember it unpainted. It certainly was beautiful.

The 50s was a time of modernization. Lots a beautiful old buildings were destroyed, and lots more tarted up to look more up to date. Veeck said in one of this books he the first thing he did when he bought a team was to paint the stadium, and a coat of paint made everything look better.

DrCrawdad
10-01-2002, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Cheryl
I don't remember it unpainted. It certainly was beautiful.

The 50s was a time of modernization. Lots a beautiful old buildings were destroyed, and lots more tarted up to look more up to date. Veeck said in one of this books he the first thing he did when he bought a team was to paint the stadium, and a coat of paint made everything look better.

Good point.

The paint surely didn't ruin Comiskey. I just prefer the look of the "natural" brick. Although I never saw the "natural" brick in person. It is Pre-DRC.

hold2dibber
10-01-2002, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
I care more about cost than anything.

:reinsy

"Me too!"