The New Wrigley

[FirstTimer]

There's good history worth saving from Wrigley Field?

Well duh! It's where the great Carlos Zambrano pitched!

 

[nwfisch]

Well duh! It's where the great Carlos Zambrano pitched!

:bow:

FirstTimer>all

 

[Jntg4]

The Cubs have no history at Wrigley. 0 Championships. The Chicago Whales of the Federal League, the Chicago Bears, and the Chicago Sting have more history there.

The history is losing. Nothing worth keeping.

It's history exists only because it is old.

New York let the Yankees tear down Yankee Stadium, so Wrigley isn't worth keeping either.

 

[FirstTimer]

The Cubs have no history at Wrigley. 0 Championships. The Chicago Whales of the Federal League, the Chicago Bears, and the Chicago Sting have more history there.

The history is losing. Nothing worth keeping.

It's history exists only because it is old.

New York let the Yankees tear down Yankee Stadium, so Wrigley isn't worth keeping either.

While I see the point and somewhat agree with it(a bit).

Wrigley and Fenway are a bit different as they are true neighborhood ballparks. In WRigley's case it basically helps to prop up the economy of the entire North Side area. Wrigley can be renovated and have it be viable for another 50-100 years. Same with Fenway. The template is there. What helps is Theo has seen it work so he can help lay into the city a bit more. The issue with WRigley isn't winning history or not, it's tradition/history of the neighborhood, the park itself, a Chicago landmark(not the "status" but the tourism end of it) etc.

I am in no way for the tearing down of Wrigley but it needs a facelift...and has for a long while. Fenway did it and it worked out fantastically.

 

[nwfisch]

While I see the point and somewhat agree with it(a bit).

Wrigley and Fenway are a bit different as they are true neighborhood ballparks. In WRigley's case it basically helps to prop up the economy of the entire North Side area. Wrigley can be renovated and have it be viable for another 50-100 years. Same with Fenway. The template is there. What helps is Theo has seen it work so he can help lay into the city a bit more. The issue with WRigley isn't winning history or not, it's tradition/history of the neighborhood, the park itself, a Chicago landmark(not the "status" but the tourism end of it) etc.

I am in no way for the tearing down of Wrigley but it needs a facelift...and has for a long while. Fenway did it and it worked out fantastically.

And at this point, I don't think Tom Ricketts is for moving out of Wrigley, with the whole rooftop, meeting his wife in the bleachers sort of thing.

 

[Rice Cube]

Not that simple. The council would first have to vote to lift the landmark status...then vote on proposed demolitions etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the scoreboard was landmarked and not the whole stadium. Isn't there a way to try to preserve the scoreboard while the rest of the stadium is gutted and rebuilt?

 

[FirstTimer]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the scoreboard was landmarked and not the whole stadium. Isn't there a way to try to preserve the scoreboard while the rest of the stadium is gutted and rebuilt?

I'm pretty sure the entire stadium is. They couldn't renovate the scoreboard because it's obviously part of the stadium and thus protected.

 

[Rice Cube]

I'm pretty sure the entire stadium is. They couldn't renovate the scoreboard because it's obviously part of the stadium and thus protected.

That might require some Googling I don't have the time for right now but will get to later. I recall someone saying that only certain parts (like the scoreboard and the marquee) were landmarked though.

Thanks!

 

[FirstTimer]

That might require some Googling I don't have the time for right now but will get to later. I recall someone saying that only certain parts (like the scoreboard and the marquee) were landmarked though.

Thanks!

I think only the scoreboard and marquee were for a time..however I think around 2005 the entire stadium got landmark status by the city.

 

[The Bandit]

The Cubs have no history at Wrigley. 0 Championships. The Chicago Whales of the Federal League, the Chicago Bears, and the Chicago Sting have more history there.

The history is losing. Nothing worth keeping.

It's history exists only because it is old.

New York let the Yankees tear down Yankee Stadium, so Wrigley isn't worth keeping either.

this granted it does have a history, but honestly its run its course its time to bring a new stadium already instead of patching Wrigley all the time.

 

[Jntg4]

It's BS that the state can landmark an old baseball stadium and not less us do shit to it.

Ricketts owns it so he should get to do what he wants with it or the state can buy it.

 

[FirstTimer]

It's BS that the state can landmark an old baseball stadium and not less us do shit to it.

Ricketts owns it so he should get to do what he wants with it or the state can buy it.

The state didn't.

The city did.

 

[Jntg4]

The state didn't.

The city did.

That's not the point.

 

[nwfisch]

It's BS that the state can landmark an old baseball stadium and not less us do shit to it.

Ricketts owns it so he should get to do what he wants with it or the state can buy it.

Even if the city would take the landmark status away, Ricketts has said nothing about moving the team from Wrigley. Tom Ricketts Continues Fight For State Money To Renovate Wrigley

And just last month Ricketts family buys McDonald's land across from Wrigley Field - Chicago Tribune

 

[FirstTimer]

That's not the point.

Kind of tough to make a point if you're flat out wrong about one of the aspects you are using to make your "point".

Ricketts knew the landmark stuff when he bought.

The landmark shit is dumb anyways. If Ricketts had the money to renovate Wrigley tomorrow and it wouldn't cost Chicago a dime they'd drop the landmark status to approve it in a heartbeat. They have been using this landmark shit as a chip in negotations on renovations for half a decade.

 

[Uman85]

While I see the point and somewhat agree with it(a bit).

Wrigley and Fenway are a bit different as they are true neighborhood ballparks. In WRigley's case it basically helps to prop up the economy of the entire North Side area. Wrigley can be renovated and have it be viable for another 50-100 years. Same with Fenway. The template is there. What helps is Theo has seen it work so he can help lay into the city a bit more. The issue with WRigley isn't winning history or not, it's tradition/history of the neighborhood, the park itself, a Chicago landmark(not the "status" but the tourism end of it) etc.

I am in no way for the tearing down of Wrigley but it needs a facelift...and has for a long while. Fenway did it and it worked out fantastically.

This.

 

[Sunbiz1]

It's BS that the state can landmark an old baseball stadium and not less us do shit to it.

Ricketts owns it so he should get to do what he wants with it or the state can buy it.

FT here is right, only he's most likely recycling my material(as usual). It is a common misconception that Wrigley has any status preventing it from being torn down or modified. Without re-reading the thread, I'm pretty sure I already posted that a simple city council approval can bring in a wrecking ball.

Wrigley Field has the same status as several lighthouses on the lake, nothing more.

 

[FirstTimer]

FT here is right, only he's most likely recycling my material(as usual).

Umm no.

I just read newspapers.

I never recycle your material.

I'm not Special person.

Hell, your material here wasn't even 100% correct.

 

[FirstTimer]

BTW Sunbiz, glad to see you posting over at VSD.

 

[Sunbiz1]

Umm no.

I just read newspapers.

I never recycle your material.

I'm not Special person.

Hell, your material here wasn't even 100% correct.

Post #29 here.

Have a nice day...idiot.