Is it time to tear down Wrigley?

[southsider2k5]

My only question is "Can I drive the bulldozer?"

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columni...0,677123.column

 

Is it time to tear down Wrigley Field?

Steve Chapman

 

Wrigley Field: It's one of the most iconic stadiums in America, with a distinctive urban location, nearly a century of history and an old-fashioned ambience. It's the best thing about the Chicago Cubs since Ernie Banks. But, as was once the case with Ernie Banks, maybe it's time to admit that Wrigley can't go on forever.

 

That's the obvious conclusion to draw from the organization's request for taxpayers to "invest" up to $300 million in the park. The Ricketts family spent $845 million to acquire the Cubs from Tribune Co. last year, the highest price ever paid for a Major League Baseball franchise. But now the new owners find they can't afford the upkeep on their elderly home, which runs about $10 million a year.

 

So they want the state, county and city to divert a share of future entertainment taxes to help fund a major renovation. Never mind that the state of Illinois is broke and the city of Chicago has a record budget deficit.

 

Chairman Tom Ricketts says the owners can't justify putting more money into the park and the adjacent area "unless you know Wrigley is going to be there." Left unspoken is the prospect that it won't be there — that the Cubs will move to new quarters in the suburbs or raze the old park and put up something suited to the needs of a 21st century team.

 

Not a bad idea. Wrigley is attractive and charming in many ways, but it's like driving a vintage car: After a while, the novelty is not enough to justify the antiquated design. The ivy-covered walls and manually operated scoreboard have to be balanced against the cramped concourses, primitive restrooms, modest kitchen facilities and obstructed views.

 

To even think of replacing the nostalgia-drenched ballpark is heresy to diehard Cubs fans. But Yankee Stadium was even richer in history and tradition — winning tradition, by the way — when the Yankees abandoned it in 2008.

 

This year, the Dallas Cowboys managed to suppress sentiment long enough to demolish Texas Stadium, probably the most recognizable facility in the National Football League and just 39 years old. Ricketts envisions playing in Wrigley for another 50 years. In what universe does that make sense?

 

He argues this would be a no-lose deal for the public because all the tax revenue to be diverted to the Cubs is money that would not be generated without their presence in Wrigley. "Those are dollars that wouldn't have been spent anywhere," he said in a meeting with the Tribune editorial board.

 

Wrong. "These things may affect where people spend, but not what they spend," says University of Chicago economist Allen Sanderson. People allocate a certain share of their budgets for entertainment. Absent the Cubs, they will go to movies, concerts, museums, White Sox games, Great America or Navy Pier.

 

But it's not as though the Cubs would be absent. Blessed with one of the biggest markets in America, and fans who turn out win or lose, they are not about to pick up and move to Nashville.

 

So they should be thinking of how to make the best of their location. A new park would rid the Cubs of their maintenance headaches, while providing them better ways to relieve fans of cash — lots of luxury boxes, better dining, new shops and diversions.

 

It would allow the team to hire better players and pamper them in style. The architect could lovingly re-create the treasured features of the existing stadium, while omitting the shortcomings.

 

I am not immune to the appeal of Wrigley, though I was wearing a Cardinals cap the last time I went. But I am immune to the appeal of using tax dollars to enrich a private business. If you own a building that is falling apart, you should either sell it, spend the money to fix it up or admit it's not worth saving — not ask your neighbors to pick up the tab.

 

The Cubs can command ample resources. They have the third-highest ticket prices in baseball, and they outdraw 23 other clubs.

 

Sure, lots of other teams have gotten government help with their parks, including the Bears and the White Sox. But not only were they also bad deals for the public, they were made in an era when our governments had plenty of money to waste.

 

That day, you may have noticed, is over. Could be Wrigley Field's time has passed as well.

 

Steve Chapman is a member of the Tribune's editorial board and blogs at chicagotribune.com/chapman.

[NorthSideSox72]

the Cubs know damn well they need Wrigley to continue doing what they do. Even if they tear it down, they'd just rebuild an almost identical stadium in the same place (but with better bathrooms, walkways, etc.). They'd play a year someplace else, probably multiple other fields, mostly The Cell.

 

[Rex Kickass]

If they don't tear it down, they need to retrofit it a la Yankee Stadium II, but you know, better.

[Soxbadger]

The Ricketts dont have the type of cash necessasary to buy some of the neighboring properties and really build a new facility that would make economic sense.

 

As long as the field is trapped between clark, addison, sheffield, it is what it is. They definitely should revamp it though, but this is an ownership group that doesnt have a lot of money to throw around.

[Swingandalongonetoleft]

I sure as hell don't want them to tear the place down (or play somewhere else for that matter). I can't imagine Chicago without Wrigley Field, and I don't particularly like the place either. It just needs a renovation.

[Thad Bosley]

the Cubs know damn well they need Wrigley to continue doing what they do. Even if they tear it down, they'd just rebuild an almost identical stadium in the same place (but with better bathrooms, walkways, etc.). They'd play a year someplace else, probably multiple other fields, mostly The Cell.

That's where it would get sort of interesting for them. There isn't a whole lotta real estate to play with over there, as the park is more or less jammed into that space as it is. How do they make the kind of changes they'd like in a new park with such limited space to do so? It's a similar bind as to what eventually brought the steep upper deck to the New Comiskey Park. As you might recall, the Sox were restricted as to how far they could expand (i.e. the width of the park) due to similar space constraints, and that unfortunately resulted in them going in the only direction they could go, which was up. For the Cubs to try and avoid obstructed views themselves, as well as provide additional places for dining, shopping, skyboxes, and what not, it would be interesting to see how they could accomplish that without building upwards as well.

[Wanne]

Is that a public part just north of Montrose Harbor? If the city wants to keep them..put it there...

[Balta1701]

the Cubs know damn well they need Wrigley to continue doing what they do. Even if they tear it down, they'd just rebuild an almost identical stadium in the same place (but with better bathrooms, walkways, etc.). They'd play a year someplace else, probably multiple other fields, mostly The Cell.

Even if they did that, they'd murder their ticket base in the down years.

[NorthSideSox72]

Even if they did that, they'd murder their ticket base in the down years.

They have a waiting list for season tickets that is on par with the total number of actual holders. They'd be down a year, probably. I don't see that making a gigantic dent in their base.

 

[Balta1701]

They have a waiting list for season tickets that is on par with the total number of actual holders. They'd be down a year, probably. I don't see that making a gigantic dent in their base.

If they came out and were winners for 10-ish years right after opening a new park, sure. But I think there'd be such a huge strain of "I'm there for the ballpark and the experience" rather than "Im there for the baseball" that would be lost

[Balta1701]

Plus, if they demolished the old one before it collapsed on its own, they'd infuriate their fan base, while if they wait for it to collapse on its own, they're in trouble that way too.

[LVSoxFan]

Wrigley is a Chicago icon. It should go nowhere. I live in Lakeview. Don't like the Cubs, but it's a part of Chicago history.

 

Ultimately I think what you do is keep the outfield bleachers (which are new anyway) and rebuild the other 2/3s of the stadium. Keep the old sign out front, keep the old-school scoreboard.

 

It's just so retarded that some people want to turn it into a modern park with video screens and all that kind of stuff. That's not the appeal of it.

 

BTW you may hate it as a baseball park but it certainly is a kickass concert venue; saw the Police there a few years back.

[NorthSideSox72]

If they came out and were winners for 10-ish years right after opening a new park, sure. But I think there'd be such a huge strain of "I'm there for the ballpark and the experience" rather than "Im there for the baseball" that would be lost

 

 

Plus, if they demolished the old one before it collapsed on its own, they'd infuriate their fan base, while if they wait for it to collapse on its own, they're in trouble that way too.

 

I think you are way overblowing the concerns here for the Cubs. They'd survive the one season just fine. The bigger key is, making sure the stadium is a lot like Wrigley of old, but with better bathrooms, food, concourses, etc.

 

[LittleHurt05]

Wrigley is a Chicago icon. It should go nowhere. I live in Lakeview. Don't like the Cubs, but it's a part of Chicago history.

 

Ultimately I think what you do is keep the outfield bleachers (which are new anyway) and rebuild the other 2/3s of the stadium. Keep the old sign out front, keep the old-school scoreboard.

 

It's just so retarded that some people want to turn it into a modern park with video screens and all that kind of stuff. That's not the appeal of it.

 

BTW you may hate it as a baseball park but it certainly is a kickass concert venue; saw the Police there a few years back.

 

It's the 21st century. Being able to watch replays, see highlights, read stats on players are all very appealing to the common baseball fan. Even Cubs fans. You don't need to do all the videos and games in between innings, but there is a lot of stuff you miss out on without even a single video screen.

[Swingandalongonetoleft]

It's just so retarded that some people want to turn it into a modern park with video screens and all that kind of stuff. That's not the appeal of it.

 

A few years ago the Tribune had an illustration of a retractable videoscreen. If they do screens (and I bet they eventually will) this is the way I'd like to see it happen. Roll it up during night games and keep it retracted during the day games.

 

That, or stick a screen on one of the rooftops.

[LVSoxFan]

It's the 21st century. Being able to watch replays, see highlights, read stats on players are all very appealing to the common baseball fan. Even Cubs fans. You don't need to do all the videos and games in between innings, but there is a lot of stuff you miss out on without even a single video screen.

 

They've made it 100+ years without 'em.

 

Although I like the "put them on the rooftops" idea. That I could live with.

[NorthSideSox72]

It's the 21st century. Being able to watch replays, see highlights, read stats on players are all very appealing to the common baseball fan. Even Cubs fans. You don't need to do all the videos and games in between innings, but there is a lot of stuff you miss out on without even a single video screen.

Very few replays are ever shown at The Cell. Especially anything controversial. Mostly what's up there is trivia, stats, and silly inning break games.

 

[kjshoe04]

I honestly feel that the neighborhood is what brings in the fans and not the stadium itself. I don't think they would be hurt at all if they put up a newer modernized stadium in the same place. However, I doubt they get a new stadium in there.

[elrockinMT]

If they tear down Wrigley where would Cub fans go to the bathroom?

[LVSoxFan]

Very few replays are ever shown at The Cell. Especially anything controversial. Mostly what's up there is trivia, stats, and silly inning break games.

 

I agree, you're right. The only thing you missed though is the opening montage before the players take the field, which I love. Other than that, I really have no use for the video screen.

 

You're right they don't replay questionable calls like they do in football.

[RockRaines]

Wrigley is a Chicago icon. It should go nowhere. I live in Lakeview. Don't like the Cubs, but it's a part of Chicago history.

 

Ultimately I think what you do is keep the outfield bleachers (which are new anyway) and rebuild the other 2/3s of the stadium. Keep the old sign out front, keep the old-school scoreboard.

 

It's just so retarded that some people want to turn it into a modern park with video screens and all that kind of stuff. That's not the appeal of it.

 

BTW you may hate it as a baseball park but it certainly is a kickass concert venue; saw the Police there a few years back.

Sorry, the appeal of it is the location and not the park itself. If you picked up that park and moved it to Evanston, Lake Forest, Schaumburg or even 35th and Shields, it wouldnt have the die hard fans that it does today. You could drop anything in that location and in 10 years it will be an "icon."

[LVSoxFan]

Sorry, the appeal of it is the location and not the park itself. If you picked up that park and moved it to Evanston, Lake Forest, Schaumburg or even 35th and Shields, it wouldnt have the die hard fans that it does today. You could drop anything in that location and in 10 years it will be an "icon."

 

It's both. It's the fact that it's in a neighborhood surrounded by rooftops, next to the el, with the chain link fences in the outfield, the old scoreboard and of course the ivy. And those bleachers. It's a piece of history.

 

So of course if you stuck in in the middle of a field in Schaumburg--what would be the point? You might as well build anew if it's out there.

 

Point being: if they were to take it out of Wrigleyville and build it anywhere but right on the lake, it would lose all its tourist/casual fan value. Also don't forget that the location means you're just steps away from dozens of bars and restaurants for before or after the game. Another argument for why it wouldn't survive like that elsewhere.

 

As opposed to the Cell, where you step outside and your choices are either Cork n' Kerry (now) or hoofing it over to Halsted.

 

Although, at the Cell you can tailgate whereas with Wrigley that's impossible.

[RockRaines]

It's both. It's the fact that it's in a neighborhood surrounded by rooftops, next to the el, with the chain link fences in the outfield, the old scoreboard and of course the ivy. And those bleachers. It's a piece of history.

 

So of course if you stuck in in the middle of a field in Schaumburg--what would be the point? You might as well build anew if it's out there.

 

Point being: if they were to take it out of Wrigleyville and build it anywhere but right on the lake, it would lose all its tourist/casual fan value. Also don't forget that the location means you're just steps away from dozens of bars and restaurants for before or after the game. Another argument for why it wouldn't survive like that elsewhere.

 

As opposed to the Cell, where you step outside and your choices are either Cork n' Kerry (now) or hoofing it over to Halsted.

 

Although, at the Cell you can tailgate whereas with Wrigley that's impossible.

 

My point is that the location is a large part of the "Icon" status. If they tore it down and built a new stadium, there would be some unrest, but eventually it would be fairly forgotten quickly. The location is 100% of what new Cubs fans appreciate.

 

[joeynach]

Its pretty obvious Wrigley is in the same situation as Fenway was when the new ownership, John Henry and company, purchased the Red Sox in 2003 I believe. There is no doubt Wrigley is need of a complete overhaul, ala Fenway 2003-2005. I remember before Red Sox announced a serious of upgrades and enhancements there was a lot of talk about replacing Fenway with a new Fenway. Anyway, so the new Red Sox ownership pumped something like $400M or so into Fenway to "bring it up to speed". Thats why you see the new Green Monster seating area, the Budweiser Right Field Roof Deck, New Field and drainage system, the .406 club/pavilion seating and lounge area, as well as other enhancements like seat/concourse/vending improvements. Thats basically the same thing Wrigley needs, its just that their new owner has proved to be a dope and asked the a bankrupt City and State, at a bad economic time, to float them $200M or more. If Wrigley is to survive, it will eventually need a makeover just like Fenway in recent years, once you spend $400M-$500M on stadium improvements you basically commit to that ballpark and location for the next 40 years or more. The cubs can (and should) do the same, they just need to get their freaking heads out of their asses!!

[Balta1701]

Its pretty obvious Wrigley is in the same situation as Fenway was when the new ownership, John Henry and company, purchased the Red Sox in 2003 I believe. There is no doubt Wrigley is need of a complete overhaul, ala Fenway 2003-2005. I remember before Red Sox announced a serious of upgrades and enhancements there was a lot of talk about replacing Fenway with a new Fenway. Anyway, so the new Red Sox ownership pumped something like $400M or so into Fenway to "bring it up to speed". Thats why you see the new Green Monster seating area, the Budweiser Right Field Roof Deck, New Field and drainage system, the .406 club/pavilion seating and lounge area, as well as other enhancements like seat/concourse/vending improvements. Thats basically the same thing Wrigley needs, its just that their new owner has proved to be a dope and asked the a bankrupt City and State, at a bad economic time, to float them $200M or more. If Wrigley is to survive, it will eventually need a makeover just like Fenway in recent years, once you spend $400M-$500M on stadium improvements you basically commit to that ballpark and location for the next 40 years or more. The cubs can (and should) do the same, they just need to get their freaking heads out of their asses!!

If the city/state say yes, then how is that the owner being a dope? If the city/state say no, what has he lost?