Tear down Wrigley?

by wild bill on Dec 29, 2007 6:29 PM CST Comment 45 comments

Happy New Year all!

Thumbing over the papers on Christmas Eve, I read an article that equals my sentiments. Ingrem of the Daily Herald had a ditty on his feelings about replacing Wrigley.

For many the thought of replacing an icon of this nature is sacrilegious. For me though, go for it. As many of us have been to other ballparks, I think we all could agree that Wrigley lags far behind in modern conveniences.

The girders that get in the way, the long lines in the restrooms (unless you hang in the sky boxes). I have always wondered why not duplicate Wrigley, only removing the arcadic features. Keep the vines, keep the brick walls, and keep the same field basically. But for goodness sakes, improve the facility for us, the fans.

This idea poses many questions. Rebuilt on the same site? Leave Chicago for the outskirts of the city? Who would pay for it? Keep the name? Would this affect attendance? As you can see, these questions would conjure up many deep feelings amongst us fans.

I have my own ideas and thoughts. In a perfect world I would duplicate the exterior, the playing field and improve the stands. As well as allowing for more seats to be filled. I would also (for totally selfish reasons) move the team west of Chicago to whatever town that would be most convenient for transportation.

So on a quiet and non eventfull day in Cub land, I thought I would throw this out to see what other ideas that could be offered. Or maybe many of you would just say, leave it alone.

Again a very best Happy New Year to all and many blessings for all with the new year upon us.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

0 recs | Comment 45 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Cotts

When did the Cubs sign Cotts to a 1 year deal? why did the Cubs sign Cotts to a 1 year deal?

I reject your reality and substitute my own. ` Adam Savage Mythbusters

by lemon20pie on Dec 29, 2007 7:02 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

At the deadline

I think they signed him at the deadline for tendering players. As to why, probably because he is left-handed.

by Cub Fan in Card Country on Dec 29, 2007 7:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

They Did...

... and I believe that he finished the season in AAA strong.

This is the Cubs new #1!

by initram on Dec 29, 2007 7:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Tear Down Wrigley?

The main arguements I have hear is "Oh its too old, its run down, its this its that."

The Sears Tower is 30 years old+ should be tear that down?

Im really tired of hearing these stories by the MSM, That suggest Wrigley is a dump or should be torn down etc. Whats wrong with being old fashioned, and quaint?

You dont have to have Jumbotrons and video bars whatever.

"I guess you had some lean years, and didnt have to beat it hard" - Craig Sager

by Galvan316 on Dec 29, 2007 7:40 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Tear Down Wrigley?

What MSM arguments are those? Links please.

PERRY!!!!

by Goat Whisperer on Dec 29, 2007 9:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

MSM:

Mike North, Rick Morissey other media outlets to name a few.

"I guess you had some lean years, and didnt have to beat it hard" - Craig Sager

by Galvan316 on Dec 30, 2007 12:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm sick of hearing

how inconvenienced we fans are by Wrigley Field. You're going to a baseball game. If you want to be pampered, go to a thousand dollar a night hotel, or a resort.

by markleonette on Dec 29, 2007 8:00 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

i agree completely.

what more do you need than a seat and a game to watch? i don't get it.

i understand the potential for increased revenue through more luxury boxes. i don't understand these need for more conveniences. i've been to the park dozens of time and have always been completely comfortable.

"If you play more than two chords, you're showing off."--Woody Guthrie

by buckmulligan on Dec 30, 2007 8:28 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That's what I always say

I admit I don't like the ladies rooms there but if I'm so worried about the bathroom I'll stay home and watch and go to the bathroom at my house.

I go to see a game. A hot dog, pepsi and a pretzel is what I eat.

If I want sushi and I love sushi I'll go to a sushi restaurant after the game. If I want frou frou food I'll go to a frou frou restaurant after the game.

We are all waiting for that glorious October night when we finally win it all. Until then we will continue to cheer, never do the wave and hope.

by cubstoseriesby100 on Dec 31, 2007 11:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Im sick of hearing

Peoples allegiance to a stadium and not the team-I just dont understand this phenomenon at all. A newer stadium will produce more revenue which can be funneled into the product on the field...I know the payroll is over 100 million now, but in a few years, they'll be pretty hamstrung by the backloaded deals for an almost 40 year old Soriano and an unproven and aging Japanese phenom.

I dont think you can compare a 30 year old office building to a stadium that was build before Armistice Day.

Yankee stadium is far more hallowed, and is being replaced, theres no hope for wrigley or even fenway...its gonna happen, might not be for a while, but I just dont see why its such a bad thing.

Toby Flenderson represents all that is wrong with the paper business.

by bren on Dec 29, 2007 8:52 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Have you ever been to Wrigley Field?

by mexicubsfan on Dec 29, 2007 10:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

money..

yes a new stadium would bring in more revenue but the cubs do just fine in the revenue category. They make tons of money off the team and could put more into the team if they wanted to. I dont think the backloaded contracts of some of our players is a strong argument that we need to build a new stadium to produce more revenue.

by cubsmania on Dec 30, 2007 12:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Produce more revenue?

How? First, they'll have to retire probably close to half a billion (that's right, billion, with a B) worth of debt incurred in building the place. And the biggest change we, the Cubs' supporters (who fill every seat in Wrigley), will notice is that literally everything will cost more - significantly more. You think food, beverage, and parking prices are high right now? Just wait...

And then, what guarantee do you offer that this "more revenue" will be put back into baseball operations?

Refurb Wrigley. Nothing else makes nearly as much sense.

by MN exile on Dec 30, 2007 12:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yankee Stadium

I'm sorry but just because more history has happened at Yankee Stadium doesn't make it an appealing venue. I've been to the three 'old-time' parks (Wrigley, Fenway and Yankee Stadium) and there's no comparison between them. Wrigley and Fenway are unique because they've managed to maintain their character despite the world changing around them. The remodel in the 70s put Yankee Stadium on the path to eventual obsolescence; it removed a lot of the old-time feel while removing a lot of the arguments for keeping it around when it decayed. There's no way to return to the past; if you watch a game there, the OF and Canyon of Heroes are cool, but if you look at any other section of the park, you could be at Shea, Veterans or San Diego Stadiums. It's the worst of both worlds, in that it doesn't have enough retro elements to make anyone want to keep it and it's so much like the utilitarian parks of the 60s and 70s that it's outlived its usefulness in this day of the baseball-only facility.

I've been to games at most of the ballparks in this country, and I think you're crazy if you want to get rid of Wrigley for a park with modern amenities. Why anyone wants to watch games in luxury boxes with TVs and fine dining options while watching an instant replay on the gigantic video screen is beyond me? The modern parks are very nice, but they're somewhat generic; compare the experience at New Comiskey Park to Wrigley - it's a lot like eating at the fancy Thai place on Clark Street versus the old River Kwai Seafood on Belmont. In the entire country, there was nothing quite like River Kwai while there are thousands of upscale and bland Thai establishments.

Since I left, I've always missed Chicago but never as much as I do right now!

by TMOX on Dec 30, 2007 6:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly.

The problem with Yankee Stadium's redesign was that it was done in the 1970's, one of the worst eras in this country for architecture of any kind, and particularly sports stadiums. Think about the other stadiums from that era, the cookiecutter parks in St. Louis, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, etc.

Yankee Stadium took the worst of that era and tacked it onto an old superstructure. The reason it's being rebuilt, though, is to get more skyboxes, where the real big money is.

Wrigley Field's upper deck could easily be rebuilt to accomodate such things, along with a stadium club that faces the field (like they have at the Cell, Miller Park, Atlanta, among others), and also refurbish and expand the clubhouses, batting cages, media rooms, and other facilities that modern ballparks have. There's no reason to tear down.

Modernize, not tear down.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Dec 30, 2007 7:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Rebuilt?

Uh. No. They are building a New Yankee Stadium across the street. The old one is going down.

by frustratedfan on Dec 30, 2007 9:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry, I misspoke.

The point remains. They are building a new Yankee Stadium primarily to have more skyboxes.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Dec 30, 2007 9:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yankee stadium was overhauled in the 70's

Nothing like the original. Therefore the present Yankee Stadium cannot be compared to the shrines at 4 Yawkey Way and 1060 W. Addison.

http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/american/yankee.htm

Like in Morrissey's column the other day talking about the Cell in the same context as Wrigley. What a joke. If he wanted to compare the two teams' ballparks he should have used the one that used to reside on the North side of 35th St.

Our grandparents used to say, "I hope the Cubs win the Series before I die". Now the teenagers are saying it.

by blackhawk24 on Dec 31, 2007 10:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Agree completely

n/t

Reds will finish above the Cubs in the NL Central. Book it.

by wicubfan on Dec 31, 2007 10:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No way

Refurbish, refurnish, refinish and rehab it, but never tear it down. Ever.

Santo Forever!

by BeerCub on Dec 29, 2007 8:53 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Loud, sustained applause.

n/t

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Dec 29, 2007 10:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

There will come a day....

I think, in which the concourse and grandstand is going to have to be torn down, although I don't think it's something that needs to happen anytime in the immediate future. I love the ballpark the way it is, but you have to be a realist about these things. The bleachers and playing surface are brand new; hence, no need to touch these. I think the entire concourse will be rebuilt on the exact same site, but with all modern amenities, and larger and updated dugouts and clubhouses. I have no problem with the ballpark the way it is now, but from what I hear, the facilities are cramped and very outdated for the players (i.e. not being able to use the batting cages during games, the weight room and trainer's room are by far the smallest in baseball, etc.). But you can't abandon Wrigleyville long term, although it may need to be done for a season or two. It is simply the best baseball environment in the world.

And by the way, why do some people think that because some Cub fans love Wrigley Field and the neighborhood so much, that this means the ballpark is all we care about, not the team? I don't get this. Red Sox and Yankee fans love their old, historic ballparks, but they don't get stuck with this tag. This seems to be an old stereotype that White Sox fans love to promote simply to make us look bad, and to diminish our loyalty any way they can.

"Don't complain to me about the stormy weather, boys. Just bring the ship into port." --Steve Stone, September 2004

by ctcoff99 on Dec 30, 2007 1:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Loud, sustained applause.

n/t

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Dec 30, 2007 6:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

baseball is an old game

The Cubs are an old team, Wrigley is an old stadium. What is wrong with watching a game in a pseudo old fashion? Where else besides Fenway and Yankee Stadium (although not for long) can you go with you dad, uncle, or grandpa and reminisce of how they watched a game in the same park and how things have changed, but still feel the same. I love the feeling of Wrigley. New, modern, jumbotron, digital stadiums are great, but it's a different experience. I personally cannot wait until I have a kid that I can take to Wrigley and share my experiences with. As BeerCub said, refurb, rehab, refinish, do whatever you have to do, but don't take people's memories or future memories away.

by dahcar on Dec 29, 2007 9:35 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I wonder...

If there were any of these sort of debates on Yankees sites over the past few years....you dont seem to hear the same lamenting about their stadium change...which is really strange when you compare whats happened in the Bronx over the past century to whats happened in Wrigley.

Toby Flenderson represents all that is wrong with the paper business.

by bren on Dec 29, 2007 9:43 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Yankee Stadium

The reason, according to many Yankee fans I know, is that the "real" Yankee Stadium died in the "rebuilding" in 1974-75. The Stadium that is now going down is really only thirty years old. (Plus, the Yankee Fans remember winning teams, the Cub fans seem to focus on memories of architecture.

by frustratedfan on Dec 29, 2007 10:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I must say...

...I don't exactly understand the affection to Wrigley Field. Coming from someone who has been there well over a hundred times, I too would like to see a stadium that keeps all its aesthetics (the ivy, the scoreboard, etc.) but improve the actual facility itself.

And by the way...what do we owe Wrigley Field exactly? The Cubs have never won a World Series when calling Wrigley home. Arguably the two most memorable moments in the stadium's history (Babe Ruth's Called Shot and Bartman) went against the Cubs. You want to talk about a curse? Forget the goat, maybe Wrigley has a grudge against the Cubs.

For your information, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint.

by HoffPowahhh on Dec 29, 2007 10:22 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

That's exactly...

... what most of us are talking about. Keep the essential features, upgrade the rest. They've already done that in the bleacher reconstruction, which vastly improved that part of the facility. The sale of naming rights could help do that to the rest of the ballpark.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Dec 29, 2007 10:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I love Wrigley

but from a practical standpoint, how much longer can it even be structurally sound? buildings decay no matter what you do, and there's only so much you can do to rehab them. good ol' Wrigley's been very good to us Cubs fans over the years, but eventually it's just gonna wear out.

when the time comes, personally i would want to see Wrigley replaced with a new stadium, in the same exact place. without the stadium you have no Wrigleyville, and Wrigleyville to me is more important then Wrigley itself.

by petrie on Dec 30, 2007 12:54 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Keep in mind...

... that the entire structure isn't 93 years old. The lower deck was completely gutted and rebuilt in the late 1960's. The upper deck dates from the mid-1920's. And the bleachers were redone just two years ago.

If they can tear down and rebuild the upper deck, they've pretty much got a new structure, with the lower deck being the "oldest" part at only about 40 years old.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Dec 30, 2007 11:20 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Keep it up forever

Who references Armistice Day anyway?

by thinskull on Dec 30, 2007 7:06 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I'm NOT saying these two are synonymous...

...but would you rather have the Cubs play in Wrigley the next 20 years and win zero championships, or move to a completely new stadium in, say, Rosemont, and win a title?

Again, I'm not saying all the Cubs need to do to win a title is a new stadium, nor am I saying it's impossible for this team to win at Wrigley.

But to me, this has to be a no-brainer...right?

Thoughts?

For your information, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint.

by HoffPowahhh on Dec 30, 2007 7:35 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

if it's that simple,

i'd rather have the cubs stay in wrigley and win the series in the 21st year.

"If you play more than two chords, you're showing off."--Woody Guthrie

by buckmulligan on Dec 30, 2007 8:24 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Aggg Rosemont

.....thats all we need is more traffic around that death trap of a Toll near Ohare.

Just imagine coming home from work at 430 when a game gets out. Thats why Im glad I live in Roscoe area and work in Evanston.

Leave everything and re-do the concourse, this is the best solution (based on my opinion) but this is also what I am positive will be done with the new owner.

Dan Bernsteins opinion aside, the Cubs are part of Wrigleyville and Wrigleyville is part of the Cubs. Businesses and home owners depend on this. The Cubs are The CHICAGO CUBS, not the Rosemont Cubs not the Schaumburg Cubs....do I need a reason to hate the west suburbs any more?

The Chicago Cubs belong in Chicago.

"Hey.....Cubs win!!!" ---Harry "I strongly dislike Steve Stone." ---Hammer

by Hammer on Dec 31, 2007 10:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Wrigley can be refurbished

Wrigley can be redone while keeping the parts that make the park special. It may be expensive and it wouldn't be quick but it could be done. Then we'd have the best of both worlds, a modern park with better fan amenities while still having the original Wrigley Field.

Yankee Stadium is more about what has happened there, not what the Stadium is. Wrigley is just the opposite, unless you consider bad things happening there worth celebrating.

Fix Wrigley, don't tear it down.

I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. - Robert McCloskey

by pageian on Dec 30, 2007 11:39 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Loud, sustained applause.

n/t

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Dec 30, 2007 12:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Wrigley Field

Is synonymous with Chicago, just like the Hancock,Buckingham Fountain or Lake Michigan.

Im pretty sure no one would want to see Buckingham or the Hancock torn out then why Wrigley?

"I guess you had some lean years, and didnt have to beat it hard" - Craig Sager

by Galvan316 on Dec 30, 2007 12:55 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

and

The Berghoff, The Hyde Park Cooperative Society, Marshall Fields, the Chicago Stockyards, the Chicago Stadium, Fanny May Candy, Cabrini Green, Carson Pire Scott, the Northwestern Train Station, the Sun-Times Building, the Garrick Theater, the Street Cars... change happens.

by frustratedfan on Dec 30, 2007 9:21 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

MF

How's the new Macy's working out where Marshall Field use to be? Homogeny is not necessarily a good thing.

Since I left, I've always missed Chicago but never as much as I do right now!

by TMOX on Dec 31, 2007 1:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Macys

The quality of the products is not what it was at Marshall Fields.

I broke down and went there because a friend was registered who worked there so everything on her registry was discounted.

It's just not the name. The quality.

Marshall Field's was just Chicago and special. Macy's is New York and plastic.

Also working for Macys is not nearly as good for the employees as working for Marshall Fields.

We are all waiting for that glorious October night when we finally win it all. Until then we will continue to cheer, never do the wave and hope.

by cubstoseriesby100 on Dec 31, 2007 11:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

no need to touch Wrigley..

for the next 10-15 years. after that, I would hope they will rebuild the granstand ON SITE if that's what they HAVE to do.

I don't care about the bathrooms, or the cramped seats- who cares!!?? it's not your HOME!! We're only spending 3 hours in the joint. can't we put up with it for 3 hours for god's sake?? criminy. People who complain are not focusing on the game I guess. If it's a problem for the players- small clubhouses, etc, then why not expand into the parking lot. There's a lot of space behind third base where the parking garage is supposed to be built.

I say rebuild the third-base side FIRST, then think about rebuilding the first-base side later. It doesn't have to happen all at once.

It's a different situation than Fenway, but it could be done rather easily.

No reason to leave the corners of Clark/Addison/Waveland/Sheffield

by cashcowsquirtingsourmilk on Dec 31, 2007 12:27 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Loud, sustained applause.

n/t

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Dec 31, 2007 10:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Question for the crowd

Question for the assemblage

If necessary to save Wrigley would you accept them playing at the Cell for part or all of a season to get all the work done?

I know if it was a temporary thing the Cell would be better than Milwaukee. Simple ease of getting there.

We are all waiting for that glorious October night when we finally win it all. Until then we will continue to cheer, never do the wave and hope.

by cubstoseriesby100 on Dec 31, 2007 11:47 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I dont think

....it would be possible for the Cubs to play in Milwaukee, but if they tore down the concourse ONLY and rebuilt I wouldnt mind a season at the Cell. Same train for me, longer time on the train. Plan it well; I dont think Reinsdorf would have a problem at all with the increase $

"Hey.....Cubs win!!!" ---Harry "I strongly dislike Steve Stone." ---Hammer

by Hammer on Jan 2, 2008 2:20 PM CST reply actions 0 recs