Even though I don’t live there anymore, I would love to see Wrigley refurbished and made more comfortable to the players and the fans. But, a nice, new stadium, replicating Wrigley to a degree would also be nice. The one thing which has been discussed is that there isn’t enough available land in the city, much less in the Wrigleyville neighborhood to even attempt a leveling of the current park and rebuild it. Another aspect of the area is more parking. I know there is probably more parking now than at any time in the past, but I guess that’s the price you pay to have a major league team in your back yard.

All your ideas are on the money. Good job!

Al, great post as always. I also believe that the general historical feel of the park can be maintained while bringing certain features and amenities in line with the current era.

And I’d hardly blame the park for the ongoing futility of the Cubs’ post-season efforts. The Red Sox didn’t need a new park to win the Series and break the Buckner curse. The Cubs don’t need to move to escape their demons, either.

I’ve never understood the appeal of the Jumbotron. It’s just a nice big picture of the batter. Who cares. They don’t replay any close call, and it would be filled with ads the rest of the time. I’m there to watch the game. The other ideas all sound reasonable.

The cookie-cutters of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s are mostly not used now. They didn’t even have 40 years of usefulness. With cities being as financially strapped as they are, I don’t think building a new park is financially feasible in Chicago.

Renovations are needed and are far cheaper than building a new stadium. Even if the renovations are so extensive, the Cubs have to move their home games to the south side or Milwaukee, the renovations would be worth it. With the renovations, the Cubs could very well end up staying at Wrigley after the other teams in the NL Central have moved away from their current much newer stadiums.

I can go for the ribbon board, but I think the Jumbotron is a bit much.

not from Chicago—is the city still in the running for the Olympics? Would any renovations be timed to be part of the Olympics?

I was looking for information on the downtown Bears/Cubs stadium project but I couldn’t find anything…. care to elaborate or provide a link?

The only part of the current structure of Wrigley Field that is more than forty years old is the upper deck, which was built in stages in the 1920’s.

How old is the outfield wall/has it been re-done? cubs website says the ivy was planted in 1937—has the wall been modified since then? I can’t think that they could replace it without destroying the ivy, and I can’t think of any seasons without the ivy in my thirty years.

The loud moaning we heard about the potential sale of naming rights was far out of proportion. IF the Cubs sell naming rights — which, from what I’ve heard, they are NOT inclined to do — what on Earth does that change except the name plastered above the entrance? It does nothing to change the ballpark experience. No one would call it by its corporate name, anyway, except for the broadcasters who have to do so.

In any case, most large companies who might be approached to buy naming rights would probably shy away from doing so, because unlike most other such deals, this one might buy them negative publicity.

What the Cubs may do, as other teams have done, is to sell rights to portions of the park, as they have already done with the “Bud Light Bleachers”.

Skyboxes. In addition to a stadium club that faces the field, more skyboxes, and a private club (which could replace the existing office space) would generate an enormous amount of revenue.

The Cubs have 63 skyboxes. They could use at least twice that many. This could be accomplished with a total redesign of the upper deck — if you raised it one “level”, you could make two levels of skyboxes, one level above the existing 63 skyboxes, which would accomplish that goal without making the new upper deck too steep.

Al, could you explain further about how moving the offices would free up space for more seats? Do you mean behind the current terrace reserved section? I’m having trouble picturing it.

They should have a ProStar (Daktronics), which are in 75% of major league stadiums!Jumbotron is a Sony product, which are actually in 0 major league parks. The other 25% market share is the Diamond Vision by Mitsubishi.

Ha, I sound like the video board police.

My friends and I often pondered during games of where the best place to put one would be. I always argued for a screen either on the left or right side adjacent to the scoreboard. The rooftops would be an interesting idea, but not sure how feasible that would be.

1) Jumbotron – I understand the reasoning but I think they can get by without it. I hate to see the Jumbotron used as a cheerleader. If they can refrain, then fine. But I doubt they will.

2) Your article is title in part “Building a Champion” and then you assert that Wrigley has nothing to do with championship failures. I agree with that assertion and the entire gist of the article. I know you are doing a series but can you tie up how these changes relate to a championship.

I would suppose you would say the changes will ultimately generate more revenue enabling more spending on talent. This is a critical piece to me that should be discussed. I think we all recognize that the Yankees have enjoyed much success but have had to pay alot more per win than everyone else. And yet a few teams seem to be doing a lot with a little year in and year out. The Rays are this year’s poster boys but the Twins and A’s seem to be competitive every year and have won multiple championships in the last 25 years. I’d like to take a closer look at where these guys are succeeding. The Cubs still have the money to spend, but as we see with the Yankees, spending won’t get it done alone.

Al,
I think that the ribbon board is even worse than the Jumbotron. The Jumbotron is in only one location, and you don’t have to look at it in the course of a game. On the other hand, when I have seats surrounding the outfield, and am looking back in to home plate, I find the ribbon board enormously distracting. I try to look at the batter and the pitcher, but there are glowing messages dancing above them, telling me when to cheer and what to say. Arrrgggh. Please, just poke my eyes out with a sharp stick instead.

The only video I want is one small rectangle that tells me the speed of the last pitch.

My family and I were in Chicago in late July and early August, had no problem getting on the L from Michigan Ave. to Wrigley.
 I too love Wrigley, and the ballpark has nothing to do with the failures of this team in the playoffs. Just add a few more night games.
 I agree with the upper deck tear down renovation. I am curious, this type of project, what type of time frame would we be looking at?
 I know Ozzie went off on the ballpark in a negative fashion, however I have read others complain about the clubhouse and small quarters. So getting that done seems would be a priority.
 Hey it is a great place to see a game, keep Wrigley where it is at.

at Thillens. That is a very cool little league stadium. My kids have played there.

The scoring would be odd with the very short outfield walls, but the pitchers would have the advantage being so close to the batter.

As for Wrigley, I am in complete agreement with Al.

to implement your ideas Al. I hate those ribbon boards, they are so distracting with hundreds of Pepsi logos and such. As a bleacherite, if they can do a makeover like they did there, it should happen.

This is better than anything I found this morning in the local papers here in Chicago. As a fan, I have seen the cost of tickets only go up, so I am all for anything that adds to my Wrigley experience. Yes, what’s going on on the field is the most important thing but as with anything else, you want the full experience. You don’t go to a dingy movie theatre with sticky floors and a crappy sound system just because it retains that old theatre feel. You instead prefer to go to the Cineplex or the Imax because of the added entertainment value for you buck.

On the downside, there are so many parties involved here (politicians, team ownership, residents, local businesses) that have kept past or pending projects from taking place, that I kind of loose hope for sitting around waiting for any of this to happen. I’ll just sit back and let them argue about it for the next 10 years.

Where would they play while the renovations are being made, the South Side?

If they can do that, is it out of the realm of possibility to just tear it down and build a new one in same footprint?

And I wouldn’t have a problem with the ribbon boards — I love the ones at Turner Field here in Atlanta.

But please, please no Jumbotron. I think it does change the feel of a ballpark. Games at Turner don’t really “feel” like baseball games — they feel more like multimedia experiences that just happen to have a baseball game connected to them. I hope the Cubs would do things with a bit more class, but I don’t think the added revenue is worth it.

Everything else, I agree with. But not the Jumbotron.

As it’s been pointed out, the actual benefit of any Wrigley renovations would be to ensure a steady cash flow with a probable increase in revenues for the team. As Al pointed out, the team (I’m not sure which aspects or who in particular) did a phenomenal job on the bleacher expansion. Walking into the stadium, you really can’t tell that they weren’t there for the past 50 years. With presumably the same people in charge of any future renovations we can be fairly certain the same quality will be kept in mind.

As a necessary evil of modern society I prefer a jumbotron to the ribbon board. I honestly can’t stand the one in Miller Park. My only concern is where and who? I’m not sure about all the real estate issues, but my impression was that the rooftop buildings are all privately owned. Any signage revenue would go to the building owner and I would assume the Cubs would have to buy the building beforehand. I wonder what kind of price the current owner would ask for or if a deal could be worked out between the team and building owner. My only concern on that would be a change in ownership of the building might complicate future dealings and could possibly lead to a new guy coming in and saying he wants more of the ad revenue or whatever. Better to just own the building free and clear.

The other thing I always wondered about, is if a new stadium could be built would it be possible to put it on Northerly Island where Meigs Field used to be? I’m not sure what Daley’s plan is for that area, nor do I know if it has the necessary earth to support a large structure like a stadium, but it could be oriented to have an outfield view of Chicago’s magnificent skyline, it could share existing parking from Soldier Field, Adler Planetarium, and Shedd Aquarium, and it would be close enough to downtown that it would provide the after party atmosphere for those that wanted to seek it out.

is exactly that…Wrigley FIELD. Keep everything inside the brick walls. (IE The Field) As much as I love Wrigley I think what Al said is right on and the best way to maximze profits, fan experience and history. I’m not sold on the need for a Jumbotron, though the Torco sign would be a nice fit I guess. If we want to see replays I think a bunch of strategically placed plasma screens wold be good enough. A ribbon around the upper deck would be fine. It’s almost in place already. I obviously dont live there but I dont think another inch of real estate needs to me devoted to parking. There are so many ways to get there that are easier and cheaper than parking.

Is that everybody is trying to build new ballparks that look/feel like Wrigley/Fenway any way. Why go spend a half-billion to a billion to build a new stadium that is going to feel like Wrigley when you already have Wrigley.

If you can find ways to modernize the stadium to continue to generate the proper revenue streams for the team and also provide the proper amenities for the players, then do it.

The only benefit to a new stadium would be a retractable roof to normalize the playing conditions and the Weekend Night Game Issues. However, I think that if the Cubs applied enough pressure to City Council and threatened to begin look elsewhere and where somewhat serious about, the alderman from the Wrigleyville neighborhood would be bending over backwards to keep them there (i.e. Friday Night Games).

It generally takes about 2-2.5 hours to get there and the same time leaving. It would be nice if it was more centrally located. But in any regard, I’m not an advocate of moving it or tearing it down, so I guess I’ll just have to deal.

I think all of Al’s suggestions are right on the money. The only thing I would add is that if they do reconstruct the upper deck, they need to do it in a way that eliminates the need for the steel posts that cause the “obstructed view” seats. It also needs to be done in a way that allows someone sitting in the last few rows of the lower level to be able to see the scoreboard. I was a game against the Astros sitting in the last row of the lower level behind the plate, and I couldn’t see anything.

Personally, I think they should gut the whole thing, a la Solider Field, and rebuild it. Obviously you keep the bleachers and the outfield wall since that was recently redone, but the whole grandstand could be rebuilt, making it look identical to what it is now, but with no obstructed view seats, and whatever other amenities are needed.

They certainly screwed up with Soldier Field, at least on the outside. The inside is gorgeous, and at least they kept the collanades, but it does look like a spaceship leveled the rest of the site.

Again, I say gut the entire grandstand and rebuild. I know there isn’t a whole lot of room at Clark and Addison, but they could add some seats in the process, make all the sightlines wonderful, add the needed amenities to bring the park into this century, and still keep the look and feel of my personal Mecca.

Of course, after the display this team put on the last two months of the season and the 3 post-season games they played (again), I’m not sure I’m even going to watch them on TV, let alone make the pilgrimage from Ohio.

Is wow this is probably the first time my name has been on the front page of this amazing site. Thanks Al

Anyway,

I love Wrigley, but I think that while the ballpark has its quirks and charm, Something needs to be done about it. Whether that be a new stadium like I suggested or a total renovation as Al stated, something, anything has to be done with the ball park.

Now as for no major stadium NOT being built in a downtown area. I can name One that is A) Not in a downtown area, (has a kickass view of downtown but not quite down town) and B) Is surrounded by Parking Lot Central.

That is Citizens Bank Park in Phily. This ballpark is also located near interstates as well.

While one can argue where to put the new Home of the Cubs, I can state with pretty good certainty that If developers wanted to build a new stadium for the Cubs, they could certainly put it along the lake, or at Old McCormick place like I originally posted before.

Again, Im not advocating tearing down Wrigley, or do I think that Wrigley was the cause of the postseason failures, All im saying is an arguement has to be made about getting the Cubs a new ballpark either renovated Wrigley or brand new.

I’ll go the any number of OTHER minor league or major league ballparks- or to a college or professional football game. There you can be bombarded with not only the annoyance of the video, but the very overdriven AUDIO from the big screen system as well. Don’t underestimate THIS aspect of a “Jumbotron”. It’s awful.

One of the reasons I am a Cubs fan is the purity of the ballpark experience. I know, it is a relative thing, but I don’t want an electronic video screen telling me when to cheer, when to cheer “louder” and then cartoon-like graphics measuring the volume of the crowd screaming (which doesn’t actually measure ANYTHING), or a base stealer being “safe”, etc.etc…

I don’t want a big screen replay of a diving catch or home run. I’ll watch it real time with my own eyes by actually paying attention to the game. Gee, what a concept.

And having sat underneath a large video screen system, I can say the audio levels are PAINFUL! Whether inside or on a rooftop across the street, a “Jumbotron” or the derivative is right in the same league as doing the “wave”. Bush league.

No. No. Just NO.

I can agree with the other suggestions you made Al- even the (ugh) ribbon display around the facing of the upper deck. But no big screen audio-video sensory expereince PLEASE.

It’s not as bougie as Wrigleyville, but it’s certainly a city neighborhood.

This isnt entirely germane to the topic at hand, but what is up with the lights at Wrigley. It seems every time i watch a night game at Wrigley on TV, then flip to another night game in say Yankee Stadium, Citizens etc etc, they seem so much brighter?

Do they have less light banks at Wrigley, is the position of the cameras? This always drives me crazy b/c I cant figure it out…maybe I just have a crappy TV?

If the team decides to make big changes to the grandstand, specificially the upper deck and luxury boxes, shouldn’t the design of the triangle building be adjusted too?

My impression of the triangle building, which is been discussed for years now, is that the Cubs proposed it as a way of adding some modern touches to the existing structure. If they drastically alter that existing structure, they’d also want to change their plans for the space between the current left-field grandstand and Clark Street. Rather than racing to build on the triangle property now, they’d be wiser to hold on and figure out how to use that lot in their final plans for the grandstand renovations.

Should not be used as an excuse for the Cubs losing. I love Wrigley with its basic amenities. It is like going to a neighbors and hanging out. I don’t need all the bells and whistles. it takes away from the game.

I agree with most of it , but would contend that land could be made available if the Cubs were to work with the city on it. The city is the largest landholder and I believe that some creative thought could identify a great place to put a new ballpark. In addition, there are some Chicago areas close to downtown that is screaming for re-development. If you go east of Halsted on Division, there are tons of possibilities.

However, one thing I would like to add to Al’s post is that under no circumstances should the state be involved in any ownership aspects of the stadium. There is no shortage of private enterprises willing to take this project on and there is absolutely no need (and possibly severe detriment to the on-field Cubs product) if laws limiting thier options were enacted. Thankfully, this idea seems deader than dead right now.

..the city will ever allow the Cubs to play more night games? I understand that Crane Kenney requested lifting the Friday/Saturday night game ban when the Cubs return on Thursday from a road trip, but how about the rest of the season?

I realize Wrigley is located in a neighborhood and night games cause quite a stir, but I’m sure the Cubs fill the city coffers with tax revenue, they pack crowds into the local bars and restaurants, and put out-of-towners in hotel rooms throughout the city who come to see this tourist destination of a ballpark; generating even more revenue. Seems to me that a few more night games isn’t too much to ask. Am I way off here?

What a great discussion we have going on here This Afternoon.

I agree with everything except the JumboTron-it would take away from the character of the park.

any place in sports? There is one I can think of, Lambeau Field in Green Bay essentially was not changed but built around for the new stadium and was done in one off season
(a liitle different working in spring and summer instead of winter though). The same architect that desgined the new Lambeau also did our bleachers at Wrigley. I would think a four year plan, working on right field upper deck one year, then left the next could work with no loss of games….something like phase work could work. I’m not an architect but maybe the lower level has to be “fixed” first. It can be done, and I support the “New Wrigley” concept. Also, if we are adding and changing, let go up to around 45,000 seats, we’ll sell them out and can be tastefully done with little effect on the ballpark.

Al, you make this blog more enjoyable to read with each and every post. Thank you for your insight and thoughtfulness.

Oh yeah, and I totally agree.

Al IIRC you were really unhappy with the loudspeakers pumping music out in the new bleachers. Do you not think that a jumbotron and ribbon board will be a 1000% add on of that noise?