- Joined:
- Apr 10, 2011
- Posts:
- 16,341
- Liked Posts:
- 5,990
I'll light a goat on fire and watch it run around until it burns to death in the outfield. **** your curses! :flipa:
Sunbiz1
New member
- Joined:
- May 6, 2010
- Posts:
- 6,543
- Liked Posts:
- 1,721
If your rationale is the only reason to remodel as opposed to re-build, it isn't enough imo. Nevertheless, you'll probably get your wish. People aren't going to simply be bought out to relocate, and the days of strong arming residents with zoning ordinances are long gone.
- Joined:
- Jun 7, 2011
- Posts:
- 18,077
- Liked Posts:
- 3,472
- Location:
- Chicago
I think they should turn Old Wrigley into a museum and find a new plot of land somewhere on the North Side to develop.
- Joined:
- Jun 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 7,127
- Liked Posts:
- 3,072
- Location:
- Los Angeles, CA
My favorite teams
:thinking:
Sunbiz1
New member
- Joined:
- May 6, 2010
- Posts:
- 6,543
- Liked Posts:
- 1,721
I like this idea, but would there be enough memorabilia etc leftover to fill one?. I thought the idea was to transfer as much stuff as possible to a new site.
Also, is it really necessary to keep the OF wall brick?...the ivy would take years to grow in anyways.
- Joined:
- Aug 12, 2010
- Posts:
- 8,292
- Liked Posts:
- 3,054
If cubs built a new ballpark...wrigley would be demolished...you really want wrigley to be the next tiger stadium and just sit there and rot...there was a reason tiger stadium,old comiskey,and old yankee stadium were torn down.
it would cost way to much $$$ to keep it maintained. Ricketts wouldnt be paying for it...the city and the taxpayers would be paying for a old empty ballpark to stay standing.
it would cost way to much $$$ to keep it maintained. Ricketts wouldnt be paying for it...the city and the taxpayers would be paying for a old empty ballpark to stay standing.
Last edited:
- Joined:
- Jun 7, 2011
- Posts:
- 18,077
- Liked Posts:
- 3,472
- Location:
- Chicago
The neighborhood and homeowners in the area are leeching off Wrigley Field anyway in terms of economics. Make them pay for it if they don't want it to rot. They're the ones preventing the Cubs from playing more night games and setting up more advertising.
- Joined:
- Jun 25, 2010
- Posts:
- 20,022
- Liked Posts:
- 9,559
- Location:
- Next to the beef gristle mill
My favorite teams
If they aren't going to build the biggest baseball stadium in the MLB, I can careless. This is Chicago, not bumfuck USA. When owners and management can't find ways to get money here, then they sure as hell aren't going to find ways to win a World Series.
- Joined:
- Jun 25, 2010
- Posts:
- 20,022
- Liked Posts:
- 9,559
- Location:
- Next to the beef gristle mill
My favorite teams
The market has already adjusted for the beneficiaries. The Wriglyville businesses bring in just as many fans to games, as the Cubs bring in customers. The value, taxes, everything is adjusted therefore. It's part of the economic law of Cardinal Utility. Your imperialistic thinking only hurts both sides, and then it hurts the city as well.
Sunbiz1
New member
- Joined:
- May 6, 2010
- Posts:
- 6,543
- Liked Posts:
- 1,721
There is a park west of Wrigley off Irving Pk that would work. It's a bit larger in acreage, they could build there and relocate the park to the old Wrigley site.
- Joined:
- Jun 7, 2011
- Posts:
- 18,077
- Liked Posts:
- 3,472
- Location:
- Chicago
It'd be interesting to see if someone has actually done a study for this. My lying eyes and novice economist's brain tell me that the Cubs bring most of the boys to the yard though.
- Joined:
- Jun 25, 2010
- Posts:
- 20,022
- Liked Posts:
- 9,559
- Location:
- Next to the beef gristle mill
My favorite teams
You wouldn't need a study, you just plug the numbers into the formula, which is accurate within tolerance. Higher property values, higher property taxes, right of homesteading, maximizing usages, licensed gear sales, and a whole lot of other things that I can't think of off the top of my head. They both benefit each other equally from an economics standpoint. From a fan standpoint, sure, you can envy them for having exclusive property and all of those quirks to go along with it, but good luck buying one of those small properties without also paying the premiums and IL's high 16% annual property tax of assessed value on top of it, and I'm sure there are already other unique liabilities that go with being in the area, that can only be defined with parks like Wrigley.
There are a great deal of factors involved, far too many for any human or computer can even define. Such as, why was this particular spot chosen to build Weeghman Park here in the first place? Then why, of all places, did the Cubs decide to play here. The environment around there was among the best for these decisions, and sure, maybe some political corruption played a part as well, but not so much, that the lobby contributions and reimbursements forced them to make a wild decision. The environment had to be somewhat voluntary, the community had to have welcomed the idea, they made Wrigleyville unique because they capitalized. Without them, it wouldn't be the same. In return, they also saw unintended consequences that follow firm economic laws that force their properties to go up in value and in maintenance. Higher property values, higher taxes, higher traffic, higher insurance. And get this, while all of the multipliers took effect, these businesses still serve alcohol, even though it skyrockets their insurance premiums.
If anything, what costs the most money, is trying to preserve Wrigley Field. Do you remember the lights fiasco, or when they changed the seats? Oh man, that was a money pit for community politics. The culture around the park has so much red-tape to fight through, that anytime the Cubs want to fix the park, it takes almost a decade to get anything done. That does not come cheap in itself.
While it's easy for me to shout my opinion, sitting here, 70 miles away from Wrigley, the best case of the matter is, the people closest to the park should have the most opinion as well. It is in their best interest to see the best things happen. If we allow them this privilege, we all gain from it. As it stands, it seems like most want to see Wrigley before it's torn down or renovated at least once, so that bares a small majority population of fans that will protest in some form of any change. I hope someone is able to pitch the right design and sale idea to change their minds, as well as the right people who are able to mesh a modern method of funding the place without forcing Chicago White Sox fans or even non-baseball fans to foot the bill.
I can dream, and I still want a dome in Chicago for either the Bears or the Cubs. One that boasts a new league high in capacity for either sport. That is something I think Chicago deserves.
- Joined:
- Aug 12, 2010
- Posts:
- 8,292
- Liked Posts:
- 3,054
- Joined:
- Jun 7, 2011
- Posts:
- 18,077
- Liked Posts:
- 3,472
- Location:
- Chicago
Noticed that this update still has a video board on a rooftop.
- Joined:
- Aug 12, 2010
- Posts:
- 8,292
- Liked Posts:
- 3,054
i dont know if that would work/ If cubs decided to ever put up a big screen They have to put it in wrigley somewhere.
Not across the street
- Joined:
- Jun 7, 2011
- Posts:
- 18,077
- Liked Posts:
- 3,472
- Location:
- Chicago
I thought Ricketts bought some property in Wrigleyville including a couple rooftops, so I guess it depends one which rooftop he bought. That one appears to be the one with the Eamus Catuli sign on Sheffield.
- Joined:
- May 4, 2010
- Posts:
- 27,077
- Liked Posts:
- 15,145
Rahm will buckle eventually plus the city could afford it. Under the proposed plan(last I saw) all they were going to do is use existing tax streams and divert the money to the renovations. There would be "no new taxes" or no tax increases.
:rolling:
Yeah the guy who just spent nearly a billion on a baseball team and is willing to front almsot another quarter of a billion renovating Wrigley is "cheap".
That's not a corporate sponsorship name.
- Joined:
- May 4, 2010
- Posts:
- 27,077
- Liked Posts:
- 15,145
Not that simple. The council would first have to vote to lift the landmark status...then vote on proposed demolitions etc.
- Joined:
- May 4, 2010
- Posts:
- 27,077
- Liked Posts:
- 15,145
- Joined:
- Nov 12, 2010
- Posts:
- 25,053
- Liked Posts:
- 11,503
My favorite teams
There's good history worth saving from Wrigley Field?
Staff online NOW
-
bamainatlantaYou wake him up, you keep him up