A "Knothole"?

by Al Yellon on Dec 13, 2005 9:38 AM CST in Chicago Cubs News

Today's Tribune features this Paul Sullivan article detailing some additional information on the bleacher reconstruction project.

Among the things we learn from this article:

they have removed a metal gate from the wall and are leaving an open space in the right-field corner that offers passersby on Sheffield Avenue a free, ground-level view of the action.

The Cubs are calling it a "knothole" ... So how will the Cubs keep people from staking a claim to the knothole space overnight to watch the next day's game?

The Cubs aren't talking about the knothole--or anything else involving the bleacher project. Mark McGuire, executive vice president of business operations, did not return phone calls.

Methinks this will work for about one day before either the neighborhood, or the ballclub, is tired of the crowds that will undoubtedly gather, perhaps, as Sullivan suggests, even camping overnight for a space on the sidewalk. I can't see the Cubs wanting to pay for security to be there 24/7, nor do I think the city of Chicago would be thrilled with the idea of having to increase police patrols in order to keep order.

It's a lovely idea, but I think it's impractical.

This drawing acccompanied the newspaper article:

I believe this is not an accurate rendering of the current construction (except for the poles, which you have seen being constructed on the left-field side in the most recent photos, and they do indeed appear to be flagpoles). This drawing shows posts holding the back of the bleachers and creating an "underhang" -- which is exactly what the city, the neighbors, and the Cubs fought about for four years before a modified, scaled-down project was finally approved last year.

Here is a similar view, from the Cubs website, which shows the back walkway currently under construction, and that although it will be behind and below the back wall, there are no posts:

The article quotes bleacher regular Terri Johnson:

They basically ripped out the back of the bleachers. It's a gut job. It's rebuilding the bleachers, not expanding them. Once you change the sightlines, you're really changing the entire bleachers. I feel as though the Cubs misled their fans. When you say you are expanding, it's like you're putting a room addition onto a house. You don't rip down the whole house.

This is only partly true. Yes, some of the existing upsweep of the seating area was removed, but not all of it. It's hard to say whether sightlines will be different or not, until we get back in there in April. Yes, it will be different. In a perfect world, sure, I'd have loved to see it stay the way it was forever. In a perfect world, I wouldn't have wanted lights in Wrigley Field either. But they are there, and we deal with them. We'll deal with this too.

But I bet that "knothole" is covered up fairly quickly after Opening Day.

Tweet Comment 30 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Knothole

I think another park or two has tried this with a guard there limiting the time any one person can watch the game. It's more like a funeral (very much so in the Cubs' case) where people file by, take a look, see something that disturbs them, then move on.

by TR on Dec 13, 2005 10:04 AM CST reply actions

It's different in SF...

... because of the location of the "knothole".

Because the Wrigley "knothole" will be located on a public street, unless the Cubs or the city are willing to pay for security, this has the chance to become a real problem.

One guard isn't going to do it.

by Al Yellon on Dec 13, 2005 10:09 AM CST up reply actions

Agreed.

That has the potential to be an absolute disaster.

by Santos L Halper on Dec 13, 2005 10:15 AM CST up reply actions

Knothole...

Maybe knothole actually refers to where you'll take it if you try to buy seats to a game this year, even in the bleachers.

Languishing in Card Country.

by evillecubman on Dec 13, 2005 10:41 AM CST reply actions

Thanks, Al.............

.........for providing a voice of reason with regard to the expansion. How can reporters always seem to find someone who runs off the deep end?

I'd like to know how this lady can claim the sightlines will be changed. Is this the Trib's way of accepting backlash about the project?

Anyone who understood what needed to be done in order to expand would have realized this was going to be a major overhaul.

Sometimes I wonder if the automobile, the airplane or even the wheel would have been allowed to flourish if a so-called Bleacher Regular would have been making the call.......

by tville on Dec 13, 2005 11:19 AM CST reply actions

Further...

... her comment asserting that the Cubs lied to them. Did the Cubs ever say that they weren't going to remove some of the existing bleachers to ultimately expand them? I mean this woman is an architect (according to the article) and what she is complaining about, the section that was removed is being replace and seemingly will be hidden after all is done, so no one will know the difference. I mean she's complaining about them rebuilding the bleachers and not expanding them. Wouldn't an architect see the many merits of rebuilding aging bleachers rather than just tacking more seating onto the end of them? Sorry, this woman, from an architectural and structural standpoint sounds like a total idiot.

The thing is that the Cubs could have done a patchwork job on this one and it would have likely been much cheaper. Thus far it seems that the Cubs are doing a nice job. Yes, it will look different, but the alternative is either a new ballpark or even more expensive tickets.

DmL

by dmlichte on Dec 13, 2005 11:48 AM CST up reply actions

Plus

If she were an architect, she would understand the need for the new bleachers to meet fire codes and give the people who are out there enough room to move around.

by gauchodirk on Dec 13, 2005 11:58 AM CST up reply actions

No...

... the Cubs never said any of that. Further, she claims to drive by the ballpark and see all of this. As you know from the photos I and my friend David have taken, I've probably seen more of this than anyone outside the Cubs or the construction folks -- and it appears that the pitch will remain the same, there will just be several rows added above them, in addition to the extra section added in left field.

I like Paul Sullivan's stuff, but I wish he'd have asked me, too.

by Al Yellon on Dec 13, 2005 1:03 PM CST up reply actions

I wish

I wish I were a Bleacher Regular.

by drone1047 @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Dec 13, 2005 11:25 AM CST reply actions

In regards to...

...the guy whining about the gut job on the bleachers and the Cubs misleading the fans,shut it!
The site lines should not change because the pitch of the stands are going to stay the same, the only difference being is should be higher. As a capitalist I see this change to wrigley as a good thing. More jobs will be created and more money in the organizations coffers. Which maybe will be put back into player payroll.

cubsfan4life

by cubfan4life on Dec 13, 2005 11:39 AM CST reply actions

The Back Walkway

I don't know if I'm in the minority here, but the article also quotes this Terri Johnson person as complaining about the back walkway being gone and that she (I'm assuming this is a woman) won't be able to stand and mingle while having a view of the field: "They aren't selling standing-room tickets, so there will be no more standing in the bleachers. There goes the Champs Elysees of Wrigley Field." I'm sorry, but I think this is a good thing. Having sat with Al in his section a number of times, I saw firsthand how annoying it can get having people behind you drinking and talking without watching the game at all, and the bleachers weren't even crowded for those games. She's right about that back walkway being like a traffic-clogged street when the bleachers are crowded, though, because you can barely move towards the concession stand, especially in left field. God forbid people actually go to Wrigley to watch a baseball game. You can stand on Waveland or Sheffield to talk if you want (no, you can't drink, but you can stand outside at Murphy's and drink if that's what you really want to be there for). The bleachers should be for sitting and watching the game, period. If somebody wants to stand, they can buy an $8 standing room ticket in the grandstand.

Maybe this makes me a purist in wanting people to actually watch the game, but Cubs fans have an undeserved reputation as being as bunch of people who just go to Wrigley to get drunk, hang out with their buddies, and talk on their cell phones (and not just in the bleachers either). I'm sick of this reputation. Why would you spend up to $40 a game on a bleacher ticket to not even watch the game anyway? Beats me.

At least this site got a half-mention by Sullivan as a blog with picture updates of the expansion and running commentary. Good work Al! Maybe next time he'll name it as the blog with the best pictures.

Matt

by gauchodirk on Dec 13, 2005 11:54 AM CST reply actions

This woman is................

..........a friggin' idiot. The Cubs NEVER sold SRO seats for the bleachers anyway. A bleacher is a bleacher whether you sit or stand. All SRO seating is under the grandstands.

Once again, how does a reporter find someone who lacks basic knowledge on the subject, but yet is allowed to be published as if they were an expert? Even Ronny Woo is more informed.......

by tville on Dec 13, 2005 12:00 PM CST up reply actions

err...

Even Ronny Woo is more informed.......

...and we all know how Al feels about him.

2006 -- AC036097 -- Eamus Catuli!

by priorpwnz on Dec 13, 2005 12:56 PM CST up reply actions

I'm hoping............

..........with 50% more seats in the bleachers that I'll never again have to see Ronny at Wrigley.

Wishful thinking, but 'tis the season........

by tville on Dec 13, 2005 1:02 PM CST up reply actions

That'd be nice, wouldn't it?

... the best way to do that is to get the idiots who give him tickets, to STOP DOING THAT!!

by Al Yellon on Dec 13, 2005 1:04 PM CST up reply actions

Frankly...

... a large majority of the people I saw standing behind me, anyway, weren't watching the game. They were drinking, smoking (and it's not clear, but that MAY now be banned at Wrigley Field with the new ordinance), trying to pick up members of the opposite sex, and calling their friends on their cellphones to say, "Hey! I'm in the bleachers!"

Those people will be happy to pay $40 to stand on the new ramp and not watch the game. And... let 'em.

by Al Yellon on Dec 13, 2005 1:01 PM CST up reply actions

disgraceful

I might try to pick up a member of the opposite sex at Wrigley, but only if their in my general vicinity, if not, screw you, I'm watching my damn Cubs.

2006 -- AC036097 -- Eamus Catuli!

by priorpwnz on Dec 13, 2005 1:02 PM CST up reply actions

Ain't no different.............

.........in the last row in LF either, Al.

Here's hoping these "fans" will accept the ramp with no view.

by tville on Dec 13, 2005 1:05 PM CST up reply actions

Big Trouble

This has all the making of a disaster. People could get into fights over time in front of this "knothole". Really think that this is going to be a bad idea.

by DTJchris on Dec 13, 2005 12:57 PM CST reply actions

I agree...

... and as I said, I think it'll last about one day.

by Al Yellon on Dec 13, 2005 1:01 PM CST up reply actions

Ideally ....

... it would be nice if they blocked the knothole during games, but open it up otherwise. In my travels for work, I've really enjoyed walking around ballparks and peeking in when I could. In both cases (Seattle and San Diego) there was no game on and really no one else around.

by kjk on Dec 13, 2005 2:02 PM CST up reply actions

I think...

...they will(Cubs)find a way to control any situations that arise around the knot hole and also security has increased around the park since the shooting a couple of years ago. The problem will be when the Cubs reach the postseason. I'm sure we all remember what waveland and sheffield looked like during the '03 playoffs.

cubsfan4life

by cubfan4life on Dec 13, 2005 1:09 PM CST reply actions

Right...

... and can you imagine the Cubs or the city wanting to put forth and pay for that kind of security 81 times a year? I can't.

by Al Yellon on Dec 13, 2005 1:12 PM CST up reply actions

overblown

I personally think that the novelty of the knothole will wear off and may be a problem for the first couple months but like everything else, will lose it's luster.First of all, you won't be able to see the entire field with it being left of the RF well right? So anything hit to CF or LF won't be visible to anyone standing in the "knothole". I can't imagine the Tribune Co. making the view from the "knothole" too great of a view and certainly not as big as the artist's rendering in the Paul Sullivan article.

Also, have we lost all hope in our civilized society that one can't even imagine that that view can be self policed? If you get enough people out there wanting a peek, I can't imagine anyone seriously being able to horde the view for an entire game. And who the hell would want to watch an entire game from that spot anyway, when you're in Wrigleyville with so much going on? Who the hell would want to stand there and watch a Cub game with no beer, with an obstructed view? I personally think it would get old.

and this camping out overnight is really funny to me. Who the hell would camp out overnight to watch a game from something called a "knothole"? That name itself, lends me to believe that the view will be pretty tight? I can see someone maybe camping out for the first game to be the first one to watch a Cub game out of the "knothole" but after that, the novelty won't last long.

Moral of the story is, we DESPERATELY need some real Cubs news to talk about. Even some fake rumors would be nice.

by SoBlueCal on Dec 13, 2005 2:04 PM CST reply actions

Agree completely

SoBlue. Well stated and yes, bring on some news, any news!

by csb059 on Dec 13, 2005 2:47 PM CST reply actions

Replace the knothole

with a pen for a goat. Kids can feed it and pet it and we can laugh and complain about it until the Cubs finally win, then we'll be scared, very scared.

by teacher tom on Dec 13, 2005 5:32 PM CST reply actions

OK...

From Rosenthal at Foxsports.com:

Don't assume that the Cubs will pass on signing center fielder Juan Pierre long-term just because their top position prospect, Felix Pie, plays center. Pierre is a free agent after this season, but Pie, 20, might not be ready by Opening Day 2007. Besides, Pie has the arm to play a corner-outfield position...

Do we want to sign Pierre to an extension? He has the arm to play an outfield position? Huh? I'm not sure how I feel about giving an extension to Pierre.

Cubbie Blue always sPaRkLes in my eyes. Time to sPaRkLe Jimmy!

by sparkles721 on Dec 13, 2005 6:06 PM CST reply actions

And the knothole...

how big is it going to be? I feel like it is going to be as big as my bathroom window, but maybe it is going to be bigger than I imagine.

Cubbie Blue always sPaRkLes in my eyes. Time to sPaRkLe Jimmy!

by sparkles721 on Dec 13, 2005 6:08 PM CST up reply actions

Hey Al,

Have you guys (the regulars in your group) figured out where you're gonna sit in the new RF bleachers?? Think you'll have enough time opening day to pick out your new "roost" before the flood gates open?

If you go for the top-row again - it may be a little further back than some age, er... I mean SIGHT challenged folks would like!

Just curious if the Cubs have addressed this w/ the season ticket holders.

robb

"At the end of the day, don't tell me how rough the waters are... just get the ship into port." - Stoney

by BCurt10 on Dec 13, 2005 6:36 PM CST reply actions