Bleacher Reconstruction Update - January 30

by Al on Jan 30, 2006 1:38 PM CST in 2005-06 Bleacher Reconstruction Project Comment 33 comments

As you can see, they've made considerable progress on the outer wall even since my round of photos last Thursday; less so on the interior.

Photos taken Sunday afternoon, January 29; the timeline has also been updated.

Top: LF concrete nearly finished; opposite view of LF showing walkway; closeup under CF, showing beginnings of restaurant; closer view of previous photo

Middle: Underneath CF looking south down Sheffield; closeup view of work on RF walkway; new wall on Sheffield side; reverse view of previous photo

Bottom: Wider view of new wall on Sheffield

Photos by David Sameshima

0 recs | Comment 33 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

stolen bricks

i walked by the stadium on saturday and went past where the car wash used to be. the area was (and may still be) used as a storing area for bricks. each stack of bricks is held together with plastic straps. some of the straps have been broken and bricks have been stolen. interesting souvenir: "here's a brick that, if i hadn't stolen it, would have been part of wrigley field."

All wil be fixed in 2006

by DSZ on Jan 30, 2006 2:18 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Bricks

Those that stole the bricks might claim that the bricks were from a wall that got knocked down during the construction and try to sell them as old Wrigley bricks. Then again, you could do that with any old brick...

One day, the dream will come true.

by brianp88 on Jan 30, 2006 2:58 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Of course...

... the "bricks" being used now aren't actual brick, they are cinderblock painted to look like brick, and obviously new.

by Al on Jan 30, 2006 4:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Technically

First off, pic G from today shows piles of bricks that appear to be more traditional bricks. These are different than the other block that you're referring to.

Now as the cinder block versus brick, I think that they're more or less the same thing. It's the same material, just with a finished face. They're not painted, it's a bigger brick that is hollowed out and wider. All that it is is advancement in building materials. The combination block/brick likely is more efficient and safer.

Frankly, I think that the new wall looks really nice, much nicer than the old wall that was taken down. I realize it's different, but it appears that they're doing a really nice job.

DmL

by dmlichte on Jan 30, 2006 5:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Those are...

... the same blocks that have been used throughout. I do NOT believe it is the same material as brick -- bricks don't have those holes in them.

It is my understanding that they are building the interior wall with these materials and that as many of the OLD bricks as were salvageable, will go on the OUTSIDE.

And I agree, yes, it looks nicer -- it ought to, considering how old the old wall was; the old wall was one of the last original parts of Wrigley Field, over 90 years old.

by Al on Jan 30, 2006 6:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Bricks

Often times, bricks do have holes in them. Some have several holes, as we see here, some have three. Typically, when bricks are being used for a wall, those holes will be filled with mortar. Bricks that are used for pavers (walkways, driveways) do not have holes as there is no mortar used with pavers.

Take a quick look at this pic of yours:
http://images.bleedcubbieblue.com/images/admin/wrigley0129h.jpg

There are two different products being used. On the ground, beyond the scaffolding are the cinder block bricks. These appear to be normal cider blocks with a brick face edge, used with color matching red brick. The second product is on the scaffolds in this pic, a more typical brick, not as wide as the cinder block brick. I'm not sure which brick is being used where.

DmL

by dmlichte on Jan 30, 2006 6:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You know...

... you're right, having looked more closely at the photo.

The larger blocks are the inner wall; the others are being used on the outside. I can tell that from having been there; you can see clearly that ABOVE the dropcloth (or whatever that tarplike thing is), the blocks are larger, below it smaller, as regular bricks.

by Al on Jan 30, 2006 6:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry, I just couldn't help myself...

There is two layers(or wythes) of brick. The interior layer is not really brick it is more like block. It is not really typical block either more like a decorative block, probably to look nicer for the interior space. The outer layer is typical "face" brick, yes it does have holes, but the holes are much smaller than those in the block. The tarp thing is their to keep rain or other water from getting between the layers of the wall while it is being constructed.
If you look at the fifth picture or first picture in the second row, you can see the decorative blockes on a pallot(or they should be) just to right you can see a small stack of typical block and a typical block wall directly behind it.
Take a look at the second picture in the first row. You can see a number of metal rods sticking out of the concrete with little orange things on the end. The rods will go through the decorative block wall holes, then the blocks will be filled with grout to keep the wall from moving. Looking at the last picture, I think I see little metal brackets every fourth course(one row of blocks) every few feet apart, these will be used to tie the front layer of brick to the decorative block wall behind.

by Imtrejo on Jan 30, 2006 9:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Bricks

Perhaps you can answer this, but it seems to me rather difficult to recover and re-use bricks. It seems to me that taking the time to seperate bricks, remove the grout and to do so without damaging the bricks would be extremely time consuming. I mean grout isn't meant to come off easily. I also wonder how much of the old brick was used from the wall when the dugout box was built, however the amount of brick for that project was significantly less.

DmL

by dmlichte on Jan 30, 2006 10:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Often in rehab....

project's brick are salvaged, cleaned up and reused. I would assume it is a difficult process as I have never seen it done before. I have seen projects that reuse bricks cut from existing walls and put into new walls and you could never tell the difference. I have looked at the new wall behind home plate, it looks to me like it is not salvaged brick but new brick.(I could be wrong)

by Imtrejo on Jan 30, 2006 11:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Bricks and Stones

Well, someone made a fortune from the Pet Rock, so that would be not much worse of a humbug.

by Wahkeenah on Jan 31, 2006 7:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Great work on the pictures Al,

This project is coming together very quick. Your timeline of photos is a great way to track the progress.

by ccd on Jan 30, 2006 3:55 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Thanks!

They have been VERY lucky with weather the last six weeks, that's one reason it's been completed so quickly. I have no doubt they'll be ready on time.

by Al on Jan 30, 2006 4:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

This looks nicer

than the old wall for sure. Of course, the outside of the park hasn't looked nice in over half a century. The sign at Clark and Addison is the only thing that doesn't look like hell. And if you see old pictures, the roof over the ticket windows etc. used to look much nicer than today.

The concrete panels along Addison are horrible and it's almost impossible to believe that they haven't been pulled off and returned to the way they were. The chain link fence everywhere looks awful too.

Again, in old pictures there used to be iron fencing with more ornamentation where there is now chain link.

Whenever I bring someone to Wrigley Field for the first time I can see the look of disappointment on their faces until they actually see the field.

Chunks of cement fall inside and instead of fixing it the Trib puts up nets so I guess it's crazy of me to expect them to do things just because it would be nicer. Of course, if there were a way to put paying customers where the ugly cement panels are, you would then see them come down. If it generates money, the Trib's up for it. If it's just asthetics, safety or fan convenience, it's not going to happen on the Trib watch.

by TR on Jan 30, 2006 7:22 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I believe...

... that the Cubs do indeed have plans to replace the chain-link fencing and ugly concrete panels (they date from the '50s or early '60s) with more ornamental ironwork, probably next offseason.

by Al on Jan 30, 2006 7:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I hope that's true

I completely agree with the comment above -- the sense of disappointment when you see Wrigley for the first time. Especially the concrete/pebble siding and the whole "car wash" side, with ratty old chain link and peeling paint.

by Tom on Jan 31, 2006 7:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Murphy's view

From Murphy's it will look like a new park. I can't wait to see it, it is really going to be great. As always though, it's what's on the inside that counts! Al, again, thanks for keeping all of us updated.

by mrcubsfan on Jan 30, 2006 9:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Great Suggestions....

I have a question though - I thought the Wrigley Family removed the iron fencing because it was unsafe for the public out on Clark and Addison. Things were being dropped through the iron fencing - even when the park was being cleaned that stuff was falling through the iron fencing.

I'm not sure how anyone can have a image of disappointment by being at Wrigley Field whether from the inside or outside. It seems that most stadiums have chain link fence or concrete panels. I was just in St. Louis and it seems that half of their new stadium has concrete and chain link.

As far as the Tribune - I'm not sure if you have been reading the newspapers - but it seems that Tribune (and the Cubs) invested a lot of money in renovating the ballpark including the falling concrete. The City of Chicago required that the Cubs put nets up on the ballpark.

I think you have a huge anti-Tribune sentiment and you should come back to the reality that the Tribune has done good things to Wrigley. All of the improvements have been done tastifully and hopefully this bleacher project will be the same (we will have to wait and see).

Time to get off my soap box....

by Tallone on Jan 30, 2006 11:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

something like this would be nice:

1935 World Series

by bison on Jan 30, 2006 9:51 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

No access

Am I the only one who can't access that link?

by Tom on Jan 31, 2006 8:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No...

They must use a temporary URL to prevent people from hotlinking to their images.

I put it on my site here

The original looks so much better than the current fencing.

Someone mentioned elsewhere that all ballparks have chain link fencing. I can't recall seeing any at PacBell/SBC/AT&T Park, seems like its ornamental iron everywhere. I haven't been to Camden Yards in a while, but I'd bet it's the same

by bison on Jan 31, 2006 10:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

They may not..

... do something exactly like the original, but something similar to it, that would be safer than the old stuff (i.e. no one could stand there and throw stuff onto the street -- and maybe block it off from the ramps so it was inaccessible from inside, but looked nice from the outside).

by Al on Jan 31, 2006 1:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Perhaps...

... they could just install windows w/ unobtrusive metal framing. I'm sure that this could be done with framing that would mirror older materials. It could be done so as not to look modern.

DmL

by dmlichte on Jan 31, 2006 3:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Concrete

is falling so the Trib puts up nets? Doesn't that seem a little bit short of actually taking care of the problem? They HAD to put up nets or the city would have closed the park. And I said the bleachers looked good.

But can you really stand in the parking lot of the 7-11 at Addison and Sheffield, look at Wrigley Field and say, "Man, what a jewel"? If you can you're looking with your heart and not your eyes.

The Tribune has done enough to keep Wrigley Field from being a hell hole and hopefully the new building where the carwash is can contain things like a gift shop so they can turn the one behind home plate into, oh I don't know - A RESTROOM? The Trib has not done anything to the park that doesn't come back to them in money.

Yeah, they did a nice job with the lights but that was so they could have night games and make more money. Yeah, the skyboxes don't look bad but it was for more money. The bleachers will look nice but it's for more money. So the work they've done hasn't looked bad, but they haven't done a thing that didn't generate money.

Actually fix the upper deck for pure safety, no doubt at a cost of tens of millions? Nah, cuz that is a straight loss. No new seats, no new revenue, why spend money on it? The city will let the Trib put 40,000 people in a place with a ceiling that's literally crumbling and looks like the underside of a viaduct on Irving Park Road? So they figure, why fix it?

Yeah, you're right, I'm a little biased against the Tribune. The fact that they're a cheap, union busting company doesn't add to my love.

by TR on Jan 31, 2006 12:07 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Business

Sorry that's how business works. I find it ironic that you criticize the Trib for being cheap while they're posting losses in the business.

How do you think the Tribune has been able to survive all these years? It isn't by throwing money away when they don't stand to make any back. I'm sorry, that's just smart business when you're talking about the paper-thin profit margins.

You can't really blame them for being a company. You think other businesses would make expensive renovations with no chance for increased profits?

by FukudomeAtLarge on Jan 31, 2006 8:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Falling stuff

They went with an Inter-Net solution. >:)

by Wahkeenah on Jan 31, 2006 7:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting that...

..that in all the pictures that you've posted, I can't remember a single one where someone is actually working. Now, I know they are and from the progress made, they are busting their tails, but just thought it amusing that I can't recall a single pic of someone working.

Also, gonna be cutting it close on that fire hydrant.

by SoBlueCal on Jan 31, 2006 1:29 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

The photos from last Thursday...

... January 26, the day one of the workers yelled "Bleed Cubbie Blue" at me, shows some of them working.

Part of the reason, I think, is that I wind up going in the early afternoon most times -- and that seems to be crew lunch hour. I often see them walking back to the park after lunch.

David often goes on Sundays, and I don't think much work is done on Sunday.

by Al on Jan 31, 2006 4:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

'35 WS

I couldn't access it either...

by drone1047 on Jan 31, 2006 8:58 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Other old pics of Wrigley

I think the picture in that link might also found here:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://stadiumpage.com/stadiumgraveyard/wrigley35ws.JPG&i mgrefurl=http://www.stadiumpage.com/stadiumgraveyard/wrig.html&h=254&w=377&sz=44&tbn id=g1T4cec-4Ot_0M:&tbnh=80&tbnw=119&hl=en&start=1&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwrigley%2B3 5%2Bworld%2Bseries%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff

It's the fifth picture down: Detroit in the WS Oct 4-5-6. You can see some nice wrought-iron work on the left facade.

by Tom on Jan 31, 2006 9:05 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Bricks and Iron

I have to admit, the old outer brick wall was fairly unattractive. It was of interest mainly because it was old. The conrete facing was put up in the early 1950s, presumably because P.K. thought it looked modern. Maybe, but right next to the old bricks, it looked silly. The photos are interesting. The fourth one is a colorized version of the second one (from ca. 1945 World Series - notice they were letting fans sit in CF bleachers) and was the basis for the postage stamp a few years ago. Fifth one down from 1935, if you look between the tiers you can see a bit of the old bleachers, wall and scoreboard, and the temporary street bleachers. The wrought iron and the roofing on the ticket windows both suggest Spanish architecture, of all things. Maybe some of that was back-inspired by the L.A. Wrigley, which was very much Spanish architectured. The seventh photo is an architect's drawing from ca. 1937. Notice the ivy is only partway up the walls, and also notice Bill Veeck's (actually Phil Wrigley's) ill-fated Chinese Elms on the "stairsteps" leading up to the scoreboard... and also one apiece in each of the two "wells". The last (tenth) photo is an aerial from ca. 1991. You can tell because of the peculiar little scoreboard mounted above the centerfield wall. That was a prop for "The Babe", a movie starring John Goodman.

by Wahkeenah on Jan 31, 2006 7:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

As it does business

today, I think everything the Chicago Tribune owns or touches - be it the LA Times, the Baltimore Sun, WGN TV, WGN Radio or even the Chicago Tribune itself etc. etc., is mediocre at best and getting worse.

by TR on Jan 31, 2006 9:38 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

old Wrigley

The iron work in the old wrigley photos looks amazing. I would love to see an attempt at something like that done today. Perhaps they could do that while they are working on the side building.

AC 00 00 00 - BELIEVE

by mike on Jan 31, 2006 4:44 PM CST reply actions 0 recs