Thread: Rosemont Cubs?
View Single Post
  #125  
Old 03-29-2013, 02:39 PM
SI1020 SI1020 is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Deep in the heart of Dixie
Posts: 4,349
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSpivack View Post
A changing world toward what, though? The changing world of baseball in the last few decades has seen a move away from generic suburban multipurpose cookie-cutters towards city center stadiums which are supposed to look retro (nevermind if they actually do or not). Wrigley, for better or worse, is the economic model for that, a park in a neighborhood where bars and nightlife act as a huge economic pull both for and because of the ballpark. It's why most new MLB stadiums built in the last 25 years has been in a city center where the team is trying to create that neighborhood experience (the exceptions that I can think of replaced an older ballpark in the same city location; in the Bronx, Philly, Bridgeport, Arlington, Milwaukee, Atlanta and Flushing)

It's the draw of the team; the appeal of the Cubs is their old ballpark, you don't hear much about the team's tradition or history because, as Rosenbloom said, their tradition and history is a losing, pathetic one. We've rehashed this argument many teams in this thread, but moving to the suburbs and out of Wrigley Field would get rid of the tourist draw for the Cubs, which I think would be an absolute disaster. A million people per season, which is my completely baseless guesstimate as to what Wrigley brings every year as a tourist draw, are not going to flock to Generic Suburban Ballpark. Attendance would absolutely crash if the Cubs moved from Wrigleyville to Rosemont, let alone at a Rosemont site that is completely unfeasible for a suburban ballpark.
Who says it has to be a generic cookie cutter stadium like those that used to be in Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and St. Louis back in the day? I know this is a very city centric board, but trends come and go. The back to the city thing is much ballyhooed and very overrated. It is a sliver of high income people leading the charge. Those that marry and have kids are often off to Naperville or some such when it is time for the kiddies to start school. Not everyone gets to go to a choice magnet school. The vast majority of Chicago area residents live outside the city limits and that is unlikely to change any time soon. Anyway, even if it is a sin to consider a ball park that isn't Wrigley, the Cubs are a special case. I mean 1908 and 1945. Even I wasn't alive then. I'm surprised a hidebound old goat like me can see that radical changes are necessary. Cub fans aren't going to give up on their team. There will be weeping wailing and gnashing of teeth but the Cubs desperately need a different venue to play in. Even if they get a refurbished Wrigley where will they play while the rehabbing is going on? Then they will still be boxed in by the rules laid down by a very powerful alderman. Sometimes in life you have to consider the unthinkable.
Reply With Quote