Originally Posted by Red Barchetta
That depends on where the new ballpark would be built and how it was designed. If Ricketts or any other future owner makes the decision that it is better to build a new ballpark than renovate Wrigley, I would think they would try to duplicate the design and slightly modernize it.
There was talk a few years ago about the Tribune company buying up some land near Northwestern and planning to build a clone of Wrigley in the event they could not come to terms with the city on a renovation plan with additional night games.
A ballpark in the design of the 70s era multi-purpose saucers would not work, but a larger, more modern Wrigley Field clone nestled into another north side neighborhood would probably work.
You can "duplicate the design" all you want. It will no longer be the same ballpark, and very few people will think it's the same experience. If you do enough modernizing to make it comfortable (instead of the cramped, bad sightlines place that it is) then it will just be a modern ballpark with ivy on the walls. If you don't modernize enough, you'll have a cramped, uncomfortable ballpark with a concourse that's small and has no view of the field, but without any of the supposed "history" of Wrigley. It's a lose-lose.