Is it time to tear down Wrigley?

[joeynach]

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?

 

I dont think the Red Sox asked the city/state for any of the money for Fenway, they knew what they were buying and took that into account when they bought the team and stadium. To me two things stick out which seem as failures on the Ricketts side. Either A he is somehow disconnected from reality and didn't realize his City/State gov't are completely bankrupt and most likely the future holds a better economic window for the city/state. Or B, somewhere along the line either Ricketts and his people didnt do their homework correctly on their purchase, overestimated revenue, underestimated ballpark needs, or were potentially misled on ballpark conditions and revenues by the selling party. If the ballpark needed $400M repairs then Ricketts and company should have known this and factored that into the sale price, just like buying a used car with depreciation and maintenance needs. Instead Ricketts comes off as rather out of touch.

 

[Bubba Philips]

I dont think the Red Sox asked the city/state for any of the money for Fenway, they knew what they were buying and took that into account when they bought the team and stadium. To me two things stick out which seem as failures on the Ricketts side. Either A he is somehow disconnected from reality and didn't realize his City/State gov't are completely bankrupt and most likely the future holds a better economic window for the city/state. Or B, somewhere along the line either Ricketts and his people didnt do their homework correctly on their purchase, overestimated revenue, underestimated ballpark needs, or were potentially misled on ballpark conditions and revenues by the selling party. If the ballpark needed $400M repairs then Ricketts and company should have known this and factored that into the sale price, just like buying a used car with depreciation and maintenance needs. Instead Ricketts comes off as rather out of touch.

[/quote ] A limited IPO those __die hard cub fans would go nuts Imagine they would be owning a piece of Wrigley.

Edited November 19, 2010 by forrestg

[bschmaranz]

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

 

The front yards of people throughout the neighborhood, like they do now. Asswipes. I almost knocked some prick out walking back to my car after The Police concert a few years back for pissing in some lady's garden.

Edited November 19, 2010 by bschmaranz

[soxrwhite]

Let the mayor handle it the way he did Meigs Field. Cubbies? Las Vegas awaits!

[hogan873]

I've only been to Wrigley 4 or 5 times, including for the Winter Classic. I can say, however, that the park is a dump. It has a ton of history, and the location is great, but I agree that a new modren park could be built there and it would be fine.

 

I'm not a Cubs fan, so I'm not going to pretend to know how they would react. But imagine a ballpark like PNC Park on that site. A beautiful, fan-friendly park would win over most baseball fans. You'd still have the neighborhood and you'd have a nice ballpark in which to watch a game.

[Iwritecode]

I've only been to Wrigley 4 or 5 times, including for the Winter Classic. I can say, however, that the park is a dump. It has a ton of history, and the location is great, but I agree that a new modren park could be built there and it would be fine.

 

I'm not a Cubs fan, so I'm not going to pretend to know how they would react. But imagine a ballpark like PNC Park on that site. A beautiful, fan-friendly park would win over most baseball fans. You'd still have the neighborhood and you'd have a nice ballpark in which to watch a game.

 

That's the problem with the Cubs though. If the stadium was just filled with baseball fans, they'd probably only average 20,000 a game. They fill up the rest of the stadium with "Wrigley" fans and busloads of people from Iowa.

[balfanman]

I've only been to Wrigley 4 or 5 times, including for the Winter Classic. I can say, however, that the park is a dump. It has a ton of history, and the location is great, but I agree that a new modren park could be built there and it would be fine.

 

I'm not a Cubs fan, so I'm not going to pretend to know how they would react. But imagine a ballpark like PNC Park on that site. A beautiful, fan-friendly park would win over most baseball fans. You'd still have the neighborhood and you'd have a nice ballpark in which to watch a game.

 

Yes, the ballpark has a "ton of history"; but most of it is soooooo bad. Why would any sane person, who cares about good baseball, not want to completely obliterate that dump and change the atmosphere of the team.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I'm really torn on this because I am trying to look at it as a baseball fan, a baseball team owner, and someone who appreciates history.

 

As a sports fan: The park, as it stands today, is a dump. It's a load of crap. The views are great, the ambiance is great, but the parks amenities and overall seating space is pathetic. There is NO parking, but public transit is good, but not everyone has easy access to public transit to Wrigley.

 

As an owner: I know that Wrigley is "the draw", not the team. Yes, people come to see the Cubs play, but Wrigley is one of the few parks that is filled no matter how bad the team is. Pittsburgh doesnt sell out and they have a ncie new park. Neither does Cincy. What's the difference? Wrigley. So, moving to a new park in the burbs or elsewhere in the city destroys your ability to draw fans when the team is down. However, a nice new ballpark gives you options to new revenue (parking, luxury boxes, more places for advertising)

 

History: Wrigley is a classic. So is Fenway. But so was Yankee Stadium, Ebbets Field, Polo Grounds, Boston Gardens, and Chicago Stadium What do they all have in common? They're all gone. They all had great histories, but for a variety of reasons, they are all gone. You cant cling to history as a crutch. Do you want to be know as the Yankees (not "that team that plays in Yankee Stadium) or the Cubs ("that team that plays in Wrigley")?

 

I do believe that Wrigley can be saved. They plans they showed are pretty impressive. But at what cost? Is it really work $400 million to try and rehab something old? The Yankees tried it, and 40 years later they built a new stadium.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Athomeboy_2000

[HuskyCaucasian]

Great Tweet:

U.S. Cellular bought the naming rights at $68 million over 20 years

[greg775]

If they tore it down and built a new Wrigley on the exact same spot, wouldn't that take years upon years? They'd have to knock it down, clear out all that debris, get the land all ready and build a new park again?? With Chicago weather delays? Wow.

If they already have renovation designs, they need to renovate right there. Don't you think the city has to help out some? Moving the Cubs to some other location to build a new park like somebody said would be a disaster.

The park and the experience is a the whole Cub experience isn't it?

[BigSqwert]

I'm really torn on this because I am trying to look at it as a baseball fan, a baseball team owner, and someone who appreciates history.

 

As a sports fan: The park, as it stands today, is a dump. It's a load of crap. The views are great, the ambiance is great, but the parks amenities and overall seating space is pathetic. There is NO parking, but public transit is good, but not everyone has easy access to public transit to Wrigley.

 

As an owner: I know that Wrigley is "the draw", not the team. Yes, people come to see the Cubs play, but Wrigley is one of the few parks that is filled no matter how bad the team is. Pittsburgh doesnt sell out and they have a ncie new park. Neither does Cincy. What's the difference? Wrigley. So, moving to a new park in the burbs or elsewhere in the city destroys your ability to draw fans when the team is down. However, a nice new ballpark gives you options to new revenue (parking, luxury boxes, more places for advertising)

 

History: Wrigley is a classic. So is Fenway. But so was Yankee Stadium, Ebbets Field, Polo Grounds, Boston Gardens, and Chicago Stadium What do they all have in common? They're all gone. They all had great histories, but for a variety of reasons, they are all gone. You cant cling to history as a crutch. Do you want to be know as the Yankees (not "that team that plays in Yankee Stadium) or the Cubs ("that team that plays in Wrigley")?

 

I do believe that Wrigley can be saved. They plans they showed are pretty impressive. But at what cost? Is it really work $400 million to try and rehab something old? The Yankees tried it, and 40 years later they built a new stadium.

 

There are a ton of terrible seats in that place with obstructed views.

 

[Balta1701]

There are a ton of terrible seats in that place with obstructed views.

Once your vision is that blurry you don't notice.

[LittleHurt05]

There are a ton of terrible seats in that place with obstructed views.

 

There are also a ton of terrible seats in that place without obstructed views. Anywhere in the back of the 200 level sucks even when there is no column in your way.

[Texsox]

First team to the suburbs owns Chicagoland baseball. Something along 53, probably Schaumburg.

 

I was trying to find it because the quote made me laugh. Some Cubs fan was saying that there was no way he'd go to a ballpark named after some business. When it was pointed out that Wrigley was the chewgum company, he left the conversation. Dumbass Cub fan.

[southsider2k5]

If they tore it down and built a new Wrigley on the exact same spot, wouldn't that take years upon years? They'd have to knock it down, clear out all that debris, get the land all ready and build a new park again?? With Chicago weather delays? Wow.

If they already have renovation designs, they need to renovate right there. Don't you think the city has to help out some? Moving the Cubs to some other location to build a new park like somebody said would be a disaster.

The park and the experience is a the whole Cub experience isn't it?

 

Isn't it a historical landmark? That makes "tearing it down" impossible.

[Balta1701]

Isn't it a historical landmark? That makes "tearing it down" impossible.

That also makes renovations much more difficult and much more expensive.

[southsider2k5]

That also makes renovations much more difficult and much more expensive.

 

Hence the latest round of plans having significant amounts of stuff done underground.

[southsider2k5]

My favorite quote so far on the one end zone problem...

 

Phil Rosenthal

This signage has me thinking: "I'm a brick wall covered with ivy that some unsuspecting defensive back plows into. I'm Mayhem."

 

[Texsox]

Isn't it a historical landmark? That makes "tearing it down" impossible.

 

 

Which makes the discussion even more interesting. Who pays for the upkeep if no one is playing there? Is it even maintained?

[RockRaines]

I believe only the Marquee and the Scoreboard are historic landmarks. I could be wrong.

 

And it would probably take 2 years to build a new stadium on that spot. They would have to play their games at the Cell most likely.

[HuskyCaucasian]

There are a ton of terrible seats in that place with obstructed views.

I was refering to the views of the lake, the building. Yes, there are some bad seats. I've sat in one.

[HuskyCaucasian]

If they tore it down and built a new Wrigley on the exact same spot, wouldn't that take years upon years? They'd have to knock it down, clear out all that debris, get the land all ready and build a new park again?? With Chicago weather delays? Wow.

If they already have renovation designs, they need to renovate right there. Don't you think the city has to help out some? Moving the Cubs to some other location to build a new park like somebody said would be a disaster.

The park and the experience is a the whole Cub experience isn't it?

They'd be out of Wrigley for 2-3 years.

[HuskyCaucasian]

First team to the suburbs owns Chicagoland baseball. Something along 53, probably Schaumburg.

 

I was trying to find it because the quote made me laugh. Some Cubs fan was saying that there was no way he'd go to a ballpark named after some business. When it was pointed out that Wrigley was the chewgum company, he left the conversation. Dumbass Cub fan.

There's a couple of possible locations along 53, but not as much as you would think. There are two huge plots of land in Elk Grove and Schaumburg along 53, but they currently hold the radio transmitter towers for WBBM and WGN respectively. We also have a huge tract of land where our softball and soccer fields are located. I've said for YEARS that would be a prime spot.

 

The best place along 53 is actually the current location of Arlington Park. You could build TWO or THREE stadiums with all the parking on all the land that Arlington occupies (Cubs and Bears?). I am sure AH would bring in a LOT more money by building one or two stadiums and a few hotels then they currently make with horse racing.

 

Maybe the best place is along 90. I believe there is some land in Schaumburg, Hoffman Estates, and South Barrington that could be a possibility if they were able to buy it.

 

The problem with urban sprawl is that a sports teams ability to get enough land to build a ballpark and all the parking is going to get harder and harder.

 

By the way, i know for a FACT that the Busse farm in Elk Grove (where the Bears wanted to move) would be available for sale, but Elk Grove will kill that plan, and there's PLENTY of room for a stadium and the same amount of parking as there is at US Cellular.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Athomeboy_2000

[NorthSideSox72]

Moving to the burbs would be a disaster for the fan bases of either team, but even more so for the Cubs.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

They'd be out of Wrigley for 2-3 years.

I doubt it. Judging by other recent stadiums, I think they miss only one season, with the build-out taking 18 months or so. They'd start while they were still in the park, then in late September really ramp up the rebuild, finish in time for Opening Day 1.5 years later. They'd play mostly at The Cell.

 

Another possibility is the Cubs build a temporary stadium on the north side somewhere, like maybe that strip of empty land between Elston and the river south of Division, just to play for a year in, a la the planned Olympic stadium. The core of it could be kept with some small facilities as a practice and rental venue.