Bleacher Reconstruction Update - January 2

by Al on Jan 2, 2006 10:30 AM CST in 2005-06 Bleacher Reconstruction Project Comment 36 comments

Just to show you how we bleacher denizens are on the same wavelength, I had e-mailed David yesterday evening asking him if he could stop by the ballpark and take photos today.

Unbeknownst to me, he had already done so, yesterday afternoon; these photos were taken, then, Sunday afternoon, January 1.

David says, and you'll see, that most of the work is being done in LF at this time (the Waveland side).

Top: Left field, from across Waveland Ave.; Left field, looking west; Left field, tighter shot of the area shown in previous photo; Left field, looking east

Bottom: Left field, looking east from the construction gate; Center field, hitting background area still awaiting construction work; Bleacher entrance area -- in this photo you can see how much larger the new entrance area will be; Right field, looking south.

Photos by David Sameshima

0 recs | Comment 36 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

cement

Thanks David and Al, things are coming around. In far left do they have cement poured for the seats and steps? Is that what I see? Also, do you think the overhang will be over the sidewalk or will they close the area below?

by mrcubsfan on Jan 2, 2006 11:43 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

The overhang...

... is definitely over the sidewalk; there will be no pillars as there were in the original proposal.

by Al on Jan 2, 2006 1:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Al...

Any signs or words of how high the fence will be above the bleachers blocking HR balls going out of the park? PReviously it was a pretty high fence and with the extention, if the fence is the same height, there would be fewer HR balls going out of the ball hawks. Just curious if you had a feel yet...

Thanks!!

by mannytrillo on Jan 2, 2006 11:50 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Fence

I don't believe they are going to have a fence. If I remember correctly just from the improvement illustrations, there will just be a railing.

Between genius and madness, lies Conrad

by conrad on Jan 2, 2006 12:25 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I believe...

... that is correct. The highest point on the new seats, appears to be maybe 10-15 feet higher than the old.

Obviously, with more rows of seating, fewer balls will leave the park. But I can tell you, I have personally witnessed many balls flying out 50 feet over our heads, and that won't change. There will still be plenty of balls out on Waveland & Sheffield.

by Al on Jan 2, 2006 1:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That is great!

That's one of the great things that makes Wrigley Wrigley. Balls flying out of the yard.
I personally think this is going to be an improvement on the exterior facade; it had gotten kinda run-down looking, with that stone siding and the ratty old chain-link fence. (I know, I know.)
I think it's going to be really nice when finished.
THANKS FOR THE PHOTOS, AL and DAVID!

by Tom on Jan 2, 2006 1:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Awesome

thanks for the photos guys, good shots! I love seein em, more and more makes me long for the end product.

2006 -- AC036097 -- Eamus Catuli!

by priorpwnz on Jan 2, 2006 3:29 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Wind

Any thoughts on how the new bleacher configuration will affect the winds? Will more balls leave the park in the future because the wind won't blow in as strongly? Or is it really not going to be that different?

Thanks for the photos for all of us fans on the North side (as in Minnesota)!

"We should never separate the lives we live from the words we speak." - Paul Wellstone

by minnesotacubfan on Jan 2, 2006 3:38 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

The Cubs claim it won't do anything...

... but then, the White Sox said the same thing before they lopped eight rows off their upper deck. It turned the Cell into a launching pad.

I believe -- and I have no studies or evidence to back this up, just a feeling -- that the larger and taller structure will, on days the wind blows in, keep some of the wind OUT, thus making it a bit less of a pitcher's park on those days.

The effect may be subtle -- turning some balls that otherwise would have been off the wall into HR -- but I'll bet you it'll be there.

by Al on Jan 2, 2006 5:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree...

...any line drive shots that don't get above the stands will have a better chance of being home runs.

cubsfan4life

by cubfan4life on Jan 3, 2006 11:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I wonder...

I wonder whether they saved the bricks they ripped out of the outer walls, which I suspect are from 1914. And I wonder why they did not see fit to set the left-center field area back 15 or 20 feet since they are going to all this trouble. That area's close proximity to home plate has cursed the Cubs more than any billy goats ever did.

by Wahkeenah on Jan 3, 2006 6:53 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

The outer wall bricks...

... were indeed saved -- at least most of them were, and as many as they can reuse in the new setup, they're going to.

To move the ivy wall would have meant destroying the entire bleachers and bringing down the scoreboard, even temporarily. Plus, they cannot touch the ivy wall, as it is landmarked.

by Al on Jan 3, 2006 6:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

More bricks

I am pleased to hear that they salvaged the bricks, although I wouldn't guarantee the owners are aware of their significance. And I think they could have repositioned the left field "well" to cut down the pitchers' "death valley" and still retained the bricks and ivy, if they wanted to. I wonder if they found any remnant of the old "372 FT" left center field marker on those bricks?

by Wahkeenah on Jan 3, 2006 8:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What...

... 372 FT. marker?

by Al on Jan 3, 2006 8:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

372 feet...

...was the posted distance to the left-center field outer wall, before they built the bleachers in front of it. 372 is not an especially deep power alley in and of itself. So extending the bleachers in front of it in 1937 made many a pitcher (such as Fergie Jenkins) curse those bleachers. Keep in mind that the 368 in "left center" is a lot closer to straightaway center than the 368 in right center. True left center is only around 350, maybe a few feet more

by Wahkeenah on Jan 3, 2006 8:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That's true...

... and the 400-foot distance isn't dead center field, either.

by Al on Jan 3, 2006 8:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Right.

The 400 foot marker is merely in the center of the sweeping curve of the center field bleacher area. Straightaway center is more like 390, if that. That 372 marker was about where the east sidewalk of Kenmore would hit the wall if it were extended. There was a 364 marker on the corner of the old left-center bleachers, which began well past the 372 marker. That 364 marker was in roughly the same spot as the 368 marker is now. So you can maybe visualize how much outfield territory they gave up in 1937.

by Wahkeenah on Jan 3, 2006 8:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Ivy wall

moving the ivy wall would not have meant tearing down the bleachers or the scoreboard. what makes you say that it would?

by hawkeyeFan on Jan 7, 2006 1:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, it would...

... because in order to move the wall, they'd have had to move the CF bleachers BACKWARD to get in as many seats as they wanted. That would have required dismantling of the scoreboard. Note in all the photos I've posted, the CF section has not been touched, and won't be.

It's moot anyway, because the ivy wall is landmarked and cannot be altered.

by Al on Jan 7, 2006 6:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

move the wall ?

Moving the outfield wall (well) back 15-20 feet would contradict expansion of the bleachers. As far as the Tribune being aware of the significance of 90 year old bricks , you only have to look behind home plate to realize they neither understand or care about Wrigley Field history.

by bleacherbench on Jan 3, 2006 8:27 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Bricks

Bingo. Truth to tell, good ol' Wrigley is an architectural hodgepodge... as were all of the "jewel box" ballparks. It's just that places like Wrigley and Fenway have lived a lot longer, and have had that much more time to acquire eccentricities. Ironically, it was the Tribune, in 1937, that warned the fans that left-center field was going to be too close. I once saw Gaylord Perry hit one into that area... and he did not hit many homers in his career.

by Wahkeenah on Jan 3, 2006 8:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

In fact...

... Perry hit only six career HR.

Which one was it?

by Al on Jan 3, 2006 8:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well

I mean the area where the bleacher wall curves inward in an "S" shape. They used to call that the "well". I guess it reminded Jack Brickhouse or Jack Quinlan or Bert Wilson or one of those guys of an actual well somehow.

by Wahkeenah on Jan 3, 2006 9:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, well

Which reminds me... according to the 1951 "Encyclopedia of Baseball" by Turkin and Thompson, the most distant part of the left field "well" was 357 feet (only 2 feet more than the foul line) and in right was 363 (10 feet more than the foul line, and not as far away from the corner as the left field "well" is. Left field is definitely too easy of a touch, even more since they put the "basket" in place in the early 70s.) Does anyone know if that "basket" feature will be retained, or will they put some distance between the front row and the top of the ivy-covered wall in order to prevent interference?

by Wahkeenah on Jan 3, 2006 9:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

AFAIK...

... the baskets will be retained.

by Al on Jan 4, 2006 8:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Gaylord Perry...

...famously hit his first homer on July 20, 1969, at Los Angeles, after someone remarked that "they will put a man on the moon before Perry hits one out." The one I saw at Wrigley was on August 8, 1971, as the Giants beat the Cubs 4 to 2 in 11, in the first game of a doubleheader (remember those?) The Cubs won game two 8-0. Glenn Beckert got 7 hits all day and Billy Williams got 3 homers. That home run by Perry was his third. He got 1 each in 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972, adding a couple more toward the end of his career. He spread them out, not wanting to wear himself out. Or maybe it's hard to grip a bat when your hands are coated in vaseline. >:)

by Wahkeenah on Jan 3, 2006 8:59 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

The Cubs...

should have had the ump check the pine tar on that bat.

by greggie44 on Jan 3, 2006 9:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes.

What if you mixed pine tar and vaseline? Would it be like matter and anti-matter? Would the ball "explode" off the bat? (Seems like).

by Wahkeenah on Jan 3, 2006 9:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

LOL!

Perry actually hit his last career HR on August 26, 1981, off Phillie (and future Cub) Dick Ruthven.

Perry was about three weeks short of 43 years old. He may have been one of the oldest pitchers, if not THE oldest, ever to homer.

by Al on Jan 3, 2006 9:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Like...

...putting a humidifier and a de-humidifier in the same room and letting them battle it out.

by greggie44 on Jan 3, 2006 9:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Al (or anyone else out there)

Do you know the projected costs on the project? Sorry, but you have probably posted this before. Any interesting links would also be appreciated. Thanks.

by greggie44 on Jan 3, 2006 9:06 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I don't have the exact numbers...

... nor do I think they are available, but I seem to remember the number $5 million being batted around.

That figure could be several years old, of course.

by Al on Jan 3, 2006 9:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Batted around...

...the Cubs needed to do more of that in 2005. :\

by Wahkeenah on Jan 3, 2006 9:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Speaking of Wrigley trivia . . .

I'm sure most of you have heard this, but it knocked my socks off a few years ago when I read that Wrigley was supposed to be one of the FIRST ballparks with lights in the major leagues (after Crosley Field in Cincinnati.)
They were going to put up lights in the early-to-mid 40s, but then the steel was called to the war effort, and they never got back to it.

by Tom on Jan 5, 2006 1:02 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Not one of the first...

... as Comiskey had lights in '39, as did a couple of other parks.

But P. K. Wrigley had bought the steel, as you note, and the towers were to go up before the 1942 season.

The day after Pearl Harbor, the steel was donated to the war effort, and after the war, P. K., who was a peculiar sort, never again considered lights.

There's a ton of cool info about Wrigley Field and its history here.

I would also recommend Stuart Shea's book on Wrigley Field, which you can conveniently buy from Amazon by clicking on the link on the left sidebar.

by Al on Jan 5, 2006 7:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Lights, etc.

Bill Veeck used to maintain that Phil Wrigley decided just to be different, putting it charitably (they meshed like oil and water). However, it is a sobering thought that, although Wrigley was the last to put lights in, even their light towers are now older than most of the major league ballparks are.

by Wahkeenah on Jan 5, 2006 8:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs