Cubs Reveal Another Wrigley Renovation Plan

[roylestillman]

The Cubs released some info regarding a new renovation plan for Wrigley and the properties they own around it. Its part of a plan they have started shopping around to Wrigleyville neighbors. The real story here is that this "scoop" was broken by the new upstart e-paper DNAinfo Chicago, a publication entirely owned by the Ricketts family, (a seemingly credible news source which has lured away Pulitzer Prize winning writer Mark Konkol from the Sun-Times.) The plans will be formally released on January 19th.

So in their usual bumbling way, the Cubbies have now managed to piss off mainstream media by having the story "broken" by their family enterprise. The Ricketts can't seem to get out of their own way.

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20130...ide-park-hotel

[DumpJerry]

Bigger dugouts! The fans' voices have been heard!!!!

[LITTLE NELL]

Originally Posted by DumpJerry

Bigger dugouts! The fans' voices have been heard!!!!

Bigger dugouts=more wins.

[moochpuppy]

Darn, was hoping this was a complete tear-down restoration.

[Red Barchetta]

The mystique of that ballpark is the only thing that organization has going for it. No way would they draw 3M "fans" each season if they played in a clone of Olympic Stadium located in the suburbs.

The smartest thing they can do is to continue and invest in the tourism dollars and build on the Wrigley Field mystique. It has nothing to do with winning baseball, however that's not their goal.

[PalehosePlanet]

Still don't know why Wrigley is a landmark; the stadium is of zero architectural significance.

Also, the article makes it sound like the team is working with at least 80 acres of space. Hotel, retail shops, parking, etc...How much space are they working with?

[doublem23]

Originally Posted by PalehosePlanet

Still don't know why Wrigley is a landmark; the stadium is of zero architectural significance.

It's one of only two Jewelbox Era Stadiums still left in the Majors.

Scarcity is a real measure of architectural significance. The Water Tower didn't carry much notoriety when it was built in 1869 but then it survived the Fire and its mystique was born.

[Thome25]

Originally Posted by doublem23

It's one of only two Jewelbox Era Stadiums still left in the Majors.

Scarcity is a real measure of architectural significance. The Water Tower didn't carry much notoriety when it was built in 1869 but then it survived the Fire and its mystique was born.

As a baseball fan, I respect the historical significance of Wrigley Field.

I love Chicago and IMO it is the greatest city in the world. Wrigley Field is good for the city because it brings in revenue and I can respect that also.

The problem isn't the Cubs or Wrigley Field per se. The problem is the meatball fans (and tourists) who show up like a bunch of lemmings and are gladly spoon-fed bull**** by the franchise.

[Red Barchetta]

Originally Posted by PalehosePlanet

Still don't know why Wrigley is a landmark; the stadium is of zero architectural significance.

Also, the article makes it sound like the team is working with at least 80 acres of space. Hotel, retail shops, parking, etc...How much space are they working with?

I think Rickett's should try and buy out the rooftop building owners. Move club admistrative offices there and perhaps lease out some restaurant space. Then install lights similar to those at Camden Yards, on top of the buildings so that the outfield lighting is on par with the rest of MLB.

They already worked out a deal for the land where the McDonalds is located.

[forrestg]

Wrigley field is a dump no matter what you do to it. Dump renovation ?

[cub killer]

Originally Posted by doublem23

It's one of only two Jewelbox Era Stadiums still left in the Majors.

Scarcity is a real measure of architectural significance. The Water Tower didn't carry much notoriety when it was built in 1869 but then it survived the Fire and its mystique was born.

The Water Tower has never been notorious.

[RKMeibalane]

Why don't they just destroy the ****ing thing? Who cares if it's a landmark?

[forrestg]

Originally Posted by RKMeibalane

Why don't they just destroy the ****ing thing? Who cares if it's a landmark?

I like implosions I think it should come down responsibly.

[sachin]

The Cubs won't win a World Series in their new ballpark.

But seriously, folks, if 5K fans a game each pay $100 for "The Wrigley Experience", that's smart business. I also think that all fans of the game should visit Wrigley once, just to see an old-time park. However, it seems like Ricketts & Co. is taking the renovation of Wrigley in the same direction of Soldier Field; souping-it-up in such a way that the old-time charms of the stadium are going to be superseded by amenities that fans expect in a modern facility. What will happen is that Wrigley will slide into being a crappy place to watch a game and the unique nostalgia of the place will be looooooooooong gone. Kinda seems like that ship has started to sail.

[roylestillman]

Originally Posted by sachin

The Cubs won't win a World Series in their new ballpark.

But seriously, folks, if 5K fans a game each pay $100 for "The Wrigley Experience", that's smart business. I also think that all fans of the game should visit Wrigley once, just to see an old-time park. However, it seems like Ricketts & Co. is taking the renovation of Wrigley in the same direction of Soldier Field; souping-it-up in such a way that the old-time charms of the stadium are going to be superseded by amenities that fans expect in a modern facility. What will happen is that Wrigley will slide into being a crappy place to watch a game and the unique nostalgia of the place will be looooooooooong gone. Kinda seems like that ship has started to sail.

Also I wonder if the Ricketts realize that dropping the Landmark status will remove the Class L property tax break on Wrigley for both the current park and any improvements to the park they may do.