Originally Posted by DSpivack
I still don't see how it is any way feasible. The site sits on just 25 acres, more than a mile away from the Blue Line stop and across the tollway from the convention center and shopping, and would be difficult to access via car while also likely not having enough room for parking. This is not viable in any way, it's a bluff that only Kaplan, a mouthpiece of the team, buys into. Whether anyone else in the media cares to repeat such team propaganda remains to be seen.
It would not be difficult to access that area by car. If a stadium was built there then there would most likely be construction done to provide easier access. But even now it's not that difficult to drive to that area. Parking is a concern, as well as the airport because there would be planes flying overhead all the time.
I don't think it's really that bad of a location. The blue line is right there so there could easily be shuttles set up to take people to and from the park. The casino is just down River Rd, the new outlet mall is opening soon, that whole area could become Wrigley North. It's not some barren wasteland that some of you city folk are making it out to be.
The only thing we all seem to agree on is that the Cubs might lose some attendance due to no longer having Wrigley Field to promote. Sure, they may lose some tourists but we all know a new stadium is always going to attract people. If they were to actually become competitive around the same time a new stadium is ready to open that impact will be felt for years. But the Ricketts need to decide what direction they want to go in with the club. Is Wrigley Field more important than the product on the field? Is Wrigley Field worth maintaining over the next 10, 20, 30 years? The Cubs are a brand name and losing Wrigley would definitely be a PR hit, but it's also something I think they can overcome.