here.

On what basis do you say that? What is NOT posted above from the article is this:

But you won’t see anyone in baseball publicly suggesting the Cubs move out of their own little national historic monument. Wrigley is too beloved to mess with — in any way other than allowing the word to get around that beneath the ivy and the bleachers, it’s no longer the perfect, idyllic ballpark it appears to be. So if you think you’ve heard the last of this, guess again.

It’s funny how quickly “we’re going to take any action necessary to ensure that the Cubs stay in Wrigley for years to come” morphs into “the stadium isn’t even a candidate for renovation.”

Much like for bridge structures, when the concrete onthe ramp structures and the second level structural support has been allowed to deteriorate to the point that pieces are falling off the bottom, the internal steel reinforcement is pretty much toast.

As an engineer, I find it very believeable that it will cost more to repair Wrigley than to tear it down and rebuild it from the ground up, particularly given that amenities such as more luxury boxes are a given for the Ricketts as part of any renovation (particularly since I see no way this gets off the ground without majority funding from Joe, Tom and his clan) and this will require a complete re-configuration of the upper deck to accommodate the luxury boxes.

Not to mention the concept of ‘obstructed view’ seating is ridiculous in modern times. A new upper deck configuration would permit an open, cantilevered design with no support columns. The facade would be restored to simulate Wrigley in the 1930’s (much like Citi Field – Ebbets Field). The bleachers and the scoreboard stay intact, and reasonable sized videoboards get integrated into the new grandstand somehow.

I believe that if you want to save Wrigley in it’s current location, the Cubs will have to play somewhere else for one year. Comiskey Park is the best option (I refuse to call it Cell Phone Field or whatever it’s current name is) for a year or two.

Look, the Bears managed to survive playing eight home games at University of Illinois (2.5 hours away) for one year while Soldier Field was basically re-built the same way. No reason the Cubs can’t survive a year away from home a 45 minute L ride from Wrigley.

If they start on October 1st of one year, they can finish by April 1st two years later. That’s an 18 month construction schedule. Working round the clock with some favorable weather (yay global warming), it should be possible. Strucutral steel and concrete can be done in cold weather, even in Chicago.

The alternative is that the Ricketts will start courting north side suburbs in a bidding war. Guessing Arlington Park would be a logical location (horse racing is on it’s deathbed, good access to rail and roadway). It is naive to think otherwise. But hey, the Chicago Historical Society will have this really great baseball museum at Clark and Addison.

…in the ballpark. This is all smoke, designed for one reason…to scare the city and state into the idea that Chicago could lose it’s 3rd most popular tourist attraction.

Not that anyone other than me has ever said this, but I think there’s an opportunity to put a stadium right on the river with views of downtown over the outfield. When there was some discussion of DePaul building a stadium in the city, the land where A. Finkel was located was discussed. There are many, many companies in old buildings located along the river that could use new locations. The city owns a lot of land along the river including the Streets and San fleet department just north of the Home Depot on North ave. Yes, this would require a partnership with the City and some concessions from local businesses, but I think it could be done.

Another idea is the land that has just been cleared from the final few Cabrini Green buildings. Perhaps there already are plans for that land, I’m not sure.

However, I remain 100% convinced that if the Cubs and the City wanted to work this out, they could find a favorable parcel of land on the North side close to downtown that could be used.

• At minimum, the new park should be at least 5 ft. deeper from power alley to power alley.
• Foul territory should be increased by 5 ft. all the way around.
• Bullpens under the grandstand.
• Wind barriers outside of the grandstand.
• Simulated brick crash barriers under the ivy.
• State of the art lighting system, with as many night games as other NL teams.
• Naming rights available to highest bidder.
• Signage and Jumbotron on adjacent rooftops.

They can’t even fill the ones they have.

PS – screw your jumbotron.

flown when TribCo took over in 1981. The neighborhood was a shit hole the team didn’t draw, it wasn’t “Wrigleyville” yet and there certainly were no icons yet like Harry and Ryno on the scene.

But then you’d have to deal with the city and the streets. It would have been a 50/50 chance then. Now? No way in hell.

That would force the Cubs to leave for at least a year, maybe two.

The Cubs would just be clients for Jerry Reinsdorf for a couple of years.

Land area simply isn’t enough and I’m not even sure they’d want the upper deck like it currently is (significant overhang).

I don’t mind going there. There are some Cubs fans who refuse to go, even to see the Cubs play there. To me, that’s just silly.

and re-built on the same site. The costs would astronomical in that small area. Not to mention everything associated with zoning & safety for a “modern” stadium. Of course, they’d have to get past all the landmark stuff too.

I know, I know…. <<< it was sarcasm >>>

But all sarcasm aside, I’d have to wonder if they’d completely level the upper deck, re-establish skyboxes further down each baseline, then re-build the upper deck, just another 20’ higher and also curved inwards as it sweeps towards each foul pole.

Really though, if the Cubs can figure out how to double the skyboxes, maybe even put pent-house suites above the ‘new’ upper deck, they’d really increase the biggest revenue generator that ballpark can ever achieve.