Wrigley's Landmark

by blackhawk24 on Mar 13, 2008 8:59 PM CDT Comment 13 comments

In the Trib this evening a very detailed article was posted. It discusses the present landmark status elements, which to my surprise includes the exposed steel columns and overall height.

The ordinance does not shut out changes which includes the seats themselves and configuration. More advertising has been added in the concourses

Of most interest is if the upper deck is razed, there is a motivation to increase the mezzanine skyboxes to the point where a new upper deck would be higher.

ISFA is expecting renovations to be $350-400B; that's up to 2/3rds of the cost of the catastrophy that occured at 16th and Balbo.

They also compare/contrast to Fenway and that Fenway is in the pending state for landmark status. There appears to be a good faith agreement in bean town that may or may not be present here in the windy city.

So it remains to me at least, that the landmark ordinance may not have to be relaxed as a whole, only in parts, and significant changes can occur.

From this it appears there will come many a proposals on how to get around or alter the landmark status points. It really looks like things are going full speed ahead folks.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-thu_wrigley-field-mar13,1,4054437.s tory

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 13 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I dont think

that theyll have any problem with aldermans and landmark statuses etc.

IIRC its against the law/rules/whatever in Chicago to have (for example) the Bleachers hanging over the sidewalk.

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

by Hammer on Mar 13, 2008 9:58 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

If that was illegal...

... they got approval for it before the construction started.

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

by Al on Mar 14, 2008 12:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Regarding skyboxes....

... I have heard talk that they might want to squeeze an extra tier of skyboxes ON TOP of the upper deck in between the light towers.

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

by Al on Mar 14, 2008 12:55 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I could see that

i think that would be the easiest way to handle adding more boxes. That being said, IF they are rebuilding the UD i wouldn't mind seeing it raised a little bit. As it is right now, if you are towards the back of terrace reserved you can't see the scoreboard. IF they are going through the trouble of rebuilding the upper deck it seems like that would be the thing to do.

AC 00 00 00 - BELIEVE

by mike on Mar 14, 2008 8:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

$400 million in renovations????

For another couple hundred million, the Cubs could have a spanking, brand new stadium!!!!

"Hey-Hey! Home Run! Attaboy Ronnie!" ~ Jack Brickhouse

by ronsanto10 on Mar 14, 2008 7:59 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, that's nuts

I've posted here a few times about how bad an idea from a taxpayer persepective it is for the ISFA to purchase Wrigley. However, regardless of that, I don't know that I'd think it would be a good idea to put that amount of money into Wrigley even if it weren't publically finanaced.

Plus, if Soldier Field and Millenium Park are any indicators, $400M is an unlikely amount, and $600M is more along the lines. $600M???? To re-do Wrigley???? Really????

Let's not forget that there are other ideas. Working with the city, the Cubs could find land on the Northside, perhaps near the river (with a lot of enhancements to the look of it) or perhaps the landfill idea next to Lake Michigan. There are other options. Is this really the best one?

by NO100 on Mar 14, 2008 9:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree...

It's NUTS to "renovate" for $600 million. This is the 21st century. Imagine a new park with a rretractable roof, Jumbotron scoreboard, clean restrooms, bullpens not on the field, luxury skyboxes, state-of-the-art training facilities, etc. etc. I love the Wrigley tradition, but c'mon a change of scenery could do wonders for our Lovable Losers.

Regarding Fenway, I think that is a different story since the Red Sox are perennial contenders anyways. But they do have a nice Jumbotron.

"Hey-Hey! Home Run! Attaboy Ronnie!" ~ Jack Brickhouse

by ronsanto10 on Mar 14, 2008 11:18 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Domes are great

But baseball is played outside, Im sorry but it is. IMO

Also, Wrigley, IMO, is going to be amazing when they renovate the concourse. On the other hand, the construction in front does not look like it will be ready by opening day........so first things first----put the statue in already

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

by Hammer on Mar 14, 2008 11:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Domes...

I said "retractable" roof. You can have your choice of indoors or outdoors. I don't know about you, but I don't like rain delays.

"Hey-Hey! Home Run! Attaboy Ronnie!" ~ Jack Brickhouse

by ronsanto10 on Mar 14, 2008 11:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The only dome I'll say yes to is...

Fukudome!

Baseball: Outside, on grass and preferable during the day; the way it was meant to be.

by blackhawk24 on Mar 14, 2008 1:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't understand

what a stadium has to do with contention.

by kanderber on Mar 15, 2008 12:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well if the team owns the stadium also

and can generate extra revenue with that stadium they can put that money back into the team. Doesn't always happen though.

Like the revenue sharing concept, that's extra money the lower level teams get extra money for their roster; though some apparently don't use it, they pocket it.

Another revenue generator is the concerts we've all talked about. Baseball ticket sales, that like of the Cubs a big market team with huge attendence, pay some 30-ish percent in revenue sharing. Money from concerts? Cubs keep all that revenue; minus of course their operating expenses.

by blackhawk24 on Mar 15, 2008 3:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm guessing if it nets the org over $200 mil there are all sorts of bending of the landmark rules. In my opinion if it betters the team then go for it. At this point i'm in it for the win.

I'm drunk......and it shows.....

by Keystone80435 on Mar 18, 2008 3:03 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs