Renovation Project
Found an interesting article at www.chicagosports.com. If you wanna read it, click the link below. It talks about how the knothole won't be open on gameday. What I found interesting was how in the article Marc McGuire talks about how, "Fans inside the bleachers, walking through the area on their way to concessions, will be able to view the action through a chain-link fence, much like the Bullpen Sports Bar at U.S. Cellular Field." I'm having a hard time picturing how that is going to work. I also found it interesting that the "Batter's Eye Resturaunt is now going to be a luxury suite. I guess they realized that it could be more profitable that way. Anyways, if you wanna read the article click here.
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 |
38 comments
Comments
Steep
by jman on Feb 9, 2006 1:59 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Bleacher seats
by Philtration on Feb 9, 2006 4:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
no
the new bleacher box seats, which aren't really "bleachers" anymore are 60. but i'm not sure why anyone would pay 60 for seats that are farther away than most of the infield seats. seems like they're trying to copy the green monster seats, but its not really the same. but i'm sure they'll sell well the next year or two, while they're novel.
by tomas21 on Feb 9, 2006 7:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
wow
Al, i think as a bleacher season ticket holder you should send john mcd a complaint letter about the cubs lying about having that restaurant be available to bleacher fans. that whole project is looking like a bait and switch.
by tomas21 on Feb 9, 2006 7:51 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Why bother?
by Al on Feb 9, 2006 8:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
is anyone surprised?
by gaius marius on Feb 9, 2006 11:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
About the knothole...
About watching from inside, remember there will be a ground-level walkway between the outer and inner walls -- that's where fans could stand and watch for a short time. I guarantee you they'll have security people there to make sure people "keep moving".
by Al on Feb 9, 2006 8:09 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
what's particularly bothersome
nobody ever suggested that fans were entitled to a free look and to take that attitude just reflects the tribune's consistent pattern of not doing a thing to create goodwill with fans. they have a great product in wrigley field and have done a good job promoting the cubs in such a way to capitalize on fans' affection for the team. but there seems to be a real disconnect when it comes to the little things. a particularly good example, which has been stated well by others, is the lack of perks given to season ticket holders.
the knothole would not be a security risk with 2 or 3 security guards out there to limit watching time when there is a line. and maintaining a line where people wait.
the idea that people would wait in line for a free 5 minute glimpse of part of a field and no view of fly balls instead of buying a ticket to a game is absurd.
by DSZ on Feb 9, 2006 9:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
minor edits
al, is there a reason we can't edit comments like we can our diaries?
by DSZ on Feb 9, 2006 9:21 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes...
I realize it doesn't always work that way -- many people write long, well-thought-out comments, and I don't want to discourage that.
by Al on Feb 9, 2006 9:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Security risk...
I think the Cubs must have seen the "knothole" at SBC (now AT&T) Park and thought they could replicate it. The difference, of course, is how SBC is configured, and where the sidewalk behind RF is located there.
They really shouldn't have done this in the first place.
by Al on Feb 9, 2006 9:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
lol
mcguire will get a raise for that one. excellent career move.
by gaius marius on Feb 9, 2006 11:10 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He needed...
by greggie44 on Feb 9, 2006 2:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What Security Risk?!
Seriously, what's the thought here -- that Al-Qaeda would use the knothole as an opportunity to launch a rocket toward the left-side upper deck fans?
Or in a less ridiculous vein, is it that some crazy man would supposedly squeeze through the knothole and wreak mayhem on the poor innocent paying customers inside?
Or that someone would bring a gun to the knothole and start shooting people from the outside?
Ridiculous. Up to and including this year, someone can just as easily lob a grenade -- or, more accessibly, an M-80, or even an uncooked egg -- over the stands from the street right now, as it is. I don't hear stories about rampant foreign object being lobbed into Wrigley Field. Do you?
At Comerica Park in Detroit, they have much more than a knothole -- they have a whole wide opening beyond centerfield where maybe 20 or 25 people can line up along the stadium wall and watch as much of the game as they want to. Of course there's a chain-link fence to keep outsiders from getting in without paying. But come on -- if they're not worried about mayhem coming in from the outside through this fence -- in downtown Detroit, for chrissakes -- what the hell are we worried about happening in Boys Town?
The whole idea about "we need much more security in a post-9/11 world" is a lot of crap, anyway. Those in power and control use this catch-all reasoning of "maintaining and enforcing security" only as a way of screwing with you, a strategy by which they maintain their power and control. It's their way of reducing your liberty and reminding you that they're in control and can screw with you anytime they want. And Americans are only too happy to comply. They will willingly trade away their freedom in exchange for the feeling of security. But it's only a feeling -- an illusion -- and no reality at all. We're just as vulnerable as we ever were, and more so -- because now we're more vulnerable to the very people we trust to protect us.
Pathetic. When are we finally going to get over ourselves on this issue? Jeez Louise -- we're such wussies.
Chuck
by chasfh on Feb 9, 2006 11:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
my hunch
that said, the idea that there would be massive, out of control crowds fighting to get a 5 minute glimpse of the game from such a bad angle is also silly. and nothing that a few $25/hour security guards couldn't keep under control.
by DSZ on Feb 9, 2006 11:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
$25/hour? For security guarding?
Chuck
by chasfh on Feb 9, 2006 12:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Trust me...
by Al on Feb 9, 2006 12:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
there are different types of security guards
i made up the $25/hour number, but if it does cost less to get off-duty cops, that's only all the more reason why the knothole would be easily managed during games.
by DSZ on Feb 9, 2006 12:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Where have you seen...
by Al on Feb 9, 2006 1:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
maybe i assumed too much on this one
and some of the security personnel have handcuffs, which led me to think that they are cops, but i suppose they might not be.
regardless, they could hire good security officers, off duty cops or not, to oversee the knothole during games if they wanted to.
the idea that they went back on the knothole for security reasons is something i just cannot believe. i tend to take corporate mouthpieces with a grain of salt, but on this one i believe mcguire: the cubs think the knothole would somehow hurt ticket sales. and that's slightly more idiotic that bill wirtz saying putting home games on tv would hurt ticket sales for the hawks.
by DSZ on Feb 9, 2006 2:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i thought
by gaius marius on Feb 9, 2006 3:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
There are...
I know OTHER ballparks, notably the Cell, hires off-duty cops, in fact puts them in special "Sox Security" shirts.
But I do not think there is a regular presence of off-duty, or even on-duty, police at Wrigley Field.
by Al on Feb 9, 2006 3:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The best off-duty cops............
If you are trying to sell a ticket, they flash their badge at you in an attempt to scare you from making a deal. The scalpers have hired them to keep the "Average Joe" from moving his extra tickets.
It's hard to say who's worse: The Cubs or the multitude of leeches capitalizing on their product.
by tville on Feb 10, 2006 11:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Is *that* what I said? What I meant was...
Let's recap:
Knothole
- Before: Tribune's consultant said the idea was to "give something back to the people" by allowing you to see through the knothole right into the ballpark, suggesting to people you can see the game in progress.
- After: Tribune says a "person on the sidewalk who hasn't bought a ticket isn't entitled" to a free view of the game, and it will be covered during games.
- Before: In 2001, Tribune sends a letter to neighborhood residents announcing the "Batter's Eye Restaurant" which would allow bleacher fans a "chance to view the game through tinted glass while eating in a new enclosed area in center field."
- After: Tribune yesterday confirmed this will actually be "a group party area, like a large mezzanine suite that will be used for group entertainment on game days" -- for a substantial fee, of course.
- Before: During the Cubs Convention last month, Tribune reveals plan for 250 "bleacher box seats" in the right-field corner. No mention is made of pricing, suggesting prices would be similar to those of the current bleachers.
- After: Ticket price is announced to be $60, the highest in the ballpark except for the infield Club Box seats -- and then only on "Prime" dates.
- Before: Tribune is reportedly expected to comply with the new non-smoking ordinance commencing on 1/16/06, making smoking illegal anywhere within the ballpark.
- After: Tribune says they are "still ... studying the city's new no-smoking ordinance to see how it affects the open-air areas in the bleachers and the roof-deck patio facing the intersection of Clark and Addison." This statement suggests future lobbying efforts by Tribune to exempt Wrigley Field from the ordinance, against the wishes of the vast majority of people, and allow smoking within the building as they see fit.
Chuck
by chasfh on Feb 9, 2006 9:28 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
that
in an excellent bit of rational advice, chuck.
by gaius marius on Feb 9, 2006 11:12 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Coincidence?
by escapegoat on Feb 9, 2006 11:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Further comments
by mike on Feb 9, 2006 10:36 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Luxury suites
A lot of parks now (the BOB in AZ for 1) have restaurants placed in the park itself and is open for business all the time. Of all the remodeling I thought that had the best potential to be something really cool. on game days have to have a ticket to enter and you can eat and have some drinks from the bar then open it up a couple hours after the game as a restaurant open to the public again. I'm ruling these new developements as E-Management. Cubs brass dropped the ball, again.
by escapegoat on Feb 9, 2006 11:18 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
According to...
by Al on Feb 9, 2006 11:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Rental?
Obviously it'd be rented out for company parties etc etc etc but that's just lame IMO.
by escapegoat on Feb 9, 2006 11:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
but
by escapegoat on Feb 9, 2006 11:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Question on windscreen
by escapegoat on Feb 9, 2006 12:15 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I have to imagine...
by Al on Feb 9, 2006 12:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know what the problem is here...
by Ross on Feb 9, 2006 12:30 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
That's true...
by Al on Feb 9, 2006 12:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It is, actually...
by Ross on Feb 9, 2006 1:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's not what I meant...
The difference here is that Sheffield is a PUBLIC STREET, with traffic, people walking that have nothing to do with the game, deliveries to bars, etc. It would be MUCH harder to control that area at Wrigley Field than it is in San Francisco.
by Al on Feb 9, 2006 1:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
must we really
i'd be happy to consdier that the cubs were really concerned about safety and security -- if they had evinced the slightest notion of it.
where did the cubs say they were concerned about security? nowhere.
what did the cubs say?
"the person on the sidewalk who hasn't bought a free ticket isn't entitled
gentlemen, i think you would do better to consider that you're in love with a team that, at best, disdains you. this rank apologism is embarrassing -- i am reading this, feeling embarrassed for you. please stop.
by gaius marius on Feb 9, 2006 3:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

by mike on 

















