All Wrigley Field renovation thread

Wrigley Field: Fix Up Or Build New?


  • Total voters
    45

nickofypres

Super Nintendo Chalmers
Donator
Joined:
Jun 14, 2010
Posts:
7,127
Liked Posts:
3,072
Location:
Los Angeles, CA
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Toledo Rockets
If they developed the area first I guess it wouldn't, but you'd have a hell of a time convincing the fanbase, the city, the businesses, the neighbors etc. to allow the Cubs to move. Also, it's pretty apparent given what transpired in the session that the Cubs aren't moving out of Wrigleyville.

I think as long as a Metra line goes there, I don't think it would be a big deal.

They could build a nice, big park with open spaces and still have the skyline in the background. Lots of parking, etc.
 

dabynsky

Fringe Average Mod
Donator
Joined:
May 17, 2010
Posts:
13,947
Liked Posts:
3,118
The argument the Cubs seem to be making at this point is either keeping the restrictions and help us pay for it or drop the restrictions and we will pay for all of it. Seems fair, especially given the deals that other teams in the city have received.
 

Sunbiz1

New member
Joined:
May 6, 2010
Posts:
6,543
Liked Posts:
1,721
Right. But they could have moved in sooner and they could have built the new park on the old location.

Wrong, and there was no reason to build in the existing location...then they would have actually had to play somewhere else.

Are you on crack?.
 

nickofypres

Super Nintendo Chalmers
Donator
Joined:
Jun 14, 2010
Posts:
7,127
Liked Posts:
3,072
Location:
Los Angeles, CA
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Toledo Rockets
The argument the Cubs seem to be making at this point is either keeping the restrictions and help us pay for it or drop the restrictions and we will pay for all of it. Seems fair, especially given the deals that other teams in the city have received.

I don't see why the restrictions aren't dropped, they renovations planned don't seem that drastic.
 

Rice Cube

World Series Dreaming
Donator
Joined:
Jun 7, 2011
Posts:
18,077
Liked Posts:
3,472
Location:
Chicago
I think as long as a Metra line goes there, I don't think it would be a big deal.

They could build a nice, big park with open spaces and still have the skyline in the background. Lots of parking, etc.

Currently there are various bus lines plus the Red Line that get to Wrigley. I think you're probably right about the Metra, but part of the appeal of the area is all the stuff you could do there. I guess the businesses will just move with the Cubs, but apparently the people with the money don't feel like moving so whatcha gonna do.

I guess it doesn't matter anyway, more convenient for me since the Red Line makes it super easy for me to get up there :D
 

dabynsky

Fringe Average Mod
Donator
Joined:
May 17, 2010
Posts:
13,947
Liked Posts:
3,118
I don't see why the restrictions aren't dropped, they renovations planned don't seem that drastic.

I'm sure some of the restrictions are the various objections that the neighborhood have (e.g. night games, farmers market and other stuff they want to have around Wrigley Field, etc.), but like I said it seems like a pretty fair deal when looking at past precedent.
 

Rice Cube

World Series Dreaming
Donator
Joined:
Jun 7, 2011
Posts:
18,077
Liked Posts:
3,472
Location:
Chicago
I don't see why the restrictions aren't dropped, they renovations planned don't seem that drastic.

I guess they wanted assurances that the important features (ivy, scoreboard, marquee) wouldn't be changed.
 

nickofypres

Super Nintendo Chalmers
Donator
Joined:
Jun 14, 2010
Posts:
7,127
Liked Posts:
3,072
Location:
Los Angeles, CA
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Toledo Rockets
Wrong, and there was no reason to build in the existing location...then they would have actually had to play somewhere else.

Are you on crack?.

You don't think the Sox wouldn't want to build the new park on top of the old plot? That is how the Sox got the money from that state is that they had to continue to play at 35th and Shields. So they just moved to the other side of the corner.
 

nickofypres

Super Nintendo Chalmers
Donator
Joined:
Jun 14, 2010
Posts:
7,127
Liked Posts:
3,072
Location:
Los Angeles, CA
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Toledo Rockets
I'm sure some of the restrictions are the various objections that the neighborhood have (e.g. night games, farmers market and other stuff they want to have around Wrigley Field, etc.), but like I said it seems like a pretty fair deal when looking at past precedent.

I guess they wanted assurances that the important features (ivy, scoreboard, marquee) wouldn't be changed.

Understood. But, you would think with the city being broke that Ricketts offering to pay for the renovations for the restrictions restricted that they would jump on it.
 

Rice Cube

World Series Dreaming
Donator
Joined:
Jun 7, 2011
Posts:
18,077
Liked Posts:
3,472
Location:
Chicago
Understood. But, you would think with the city being broke that Ricketts offering to pay for the renovations for the restrictions restricted that they would jump on it.

I'm not sure about the sequence of events, but I imagine it's something like:

1. Ricketts asked for money
2. City refuses
3. Ricketts tells the city to go **** right off, remove restrictions, he'll pay for it himself

And now it's come to this.
 

Sunbiz1

New member
Joined:
May 6, 2010
Posts:
6,543
Liked Posts:
1,721
You don't think the Sox wouldn't want to build the new park on top of the old plot? That is how the Sox got the money from that state is that they had to continue to play at 35th and Shields. So they just moved to the other side of the corner.

Sorry about the crack comment, but you're not making sense. I was here during the construction of the new stadium, and attended a few games when the upper decks were still a serious hazard for fans.

You answered your own question. Why would the Sox have built in the current location, and in doing so play elsewhere?.

They wouldn't and didn't b/c there was already property available across the street. The Cubs don't have that luxury, the nearest place they can build a new stadium is in an existing park 2 miles away from the current Wrigley.
 

85Bears4life

Bears Hall Of Famer
Donator
Joined:
Aug 12, 2010
Posts:
8,292
Liked Posts:
3,054
1_PROPOSED_MARQUEE_VIEW.jpg


2_PROPOSED_CONCOURSE.jpg


14_PROPOSED_CLUBHOUSE_OVERVIEW.jpg


15_PROPOSED_CUBS_LOCKER_ROOM.jpg
 

85Bears4life

Bears Hall Of Famer
Donator
Joined:
Aug 12, 2010
Posts:
8,292
Liked Posts:
3,054
Did anyone hear anything on the triangle Building?

Do they still plan on building it or not
 

Rice Cube

World Series Dreaming
Donator
Joined:
Jun 7, 2011
Posts:
18,077
Liked Posts:
3,472
Location:
Chicago
Did anyone hear anything on the triangle Building?

Do they still plan on building it or not

I don't think they've spoken about that for a while, however part of the session talked about a permanent ice rink. The current rink is located on the plot of land where the proposed Triangle Building would be built, so it makes sense that they'd try to develop that land somewhat even if they don't build an actual new structure.
 

Sunbiz1

New member
Joined:
May 6, 2010
Posts:
6,543
Liked Posts:
1,721
The Cubs cannot even renovate an antique messageboard,

Fact.
 
Top