Comments on: The Cubs have released some pretty amazing conceptual drawings for a renovated Wrigley Field

By: 6stn

6stn — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 03:34:14 +0000

But place a plaque where the community urine trough is in the men’s room saying that “Hack Wilson Pissed Here: 1930.”

By: mrbiz8505

mrbiz8505 — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:50:53 +0000

Get rid of the urine smell……. And then also upgrade the bathrooms….

By: sabatimus

sabatimus — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:14:25 +0000

I don’t know why now. They were the last team in the league to install lights so that night games could be played (1988). Listen to Lee Elia’s rant–it takes your point into account in a very, ahem, colorful way.

By: sabatimus

sabatimus — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:11:28 +0000

@cackalackyank: Fenway already has reached the point where further renovations won’t matter much. As much history as there is in that place, it’s not a comfortable place to go for fans, and it’s also holds the fewest seats in the league.

Not that tons of people are going to want to go this year after last year’s debacle.

By: sabatimus

sabatimus — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:06:04 +0000

Funniest thing I’ve read so far today.

By: jm91rs

jm91rs — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 15:07:47 +0000

Does anyone know why the City is so against the night games? Seems to me that Chicago is a fairly expensive place to live, meaning many people in the city have actual jobs. You might bring more people to the area surrounding the ballpark if you played more night games?

And how pissed would you be if you were an owner of one of the local roof top places that might get blocked out in a renovation? Your business is going to lose millions on these upgrades (not saying I feel sorry for them, the cubs need to do something to modernize).

By: bdickey33

bdickey33 — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 15:06:02 +0000

Yes, that view does not look like it will change. It is bad now and, but that is also why the lower section of the upper deck’s tickets are higher priced than the back of the lower deck. They are part of the non premium seating.

By: jm91rs

jm91rs — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 14:54:05 +0000

I agree that in the design it looks like the people in the back of the lower deck would have a hard time seeing any ball over 20 feet in the air, but unfortunately at Wrigley there are a ton of obstructed view seats already. Something like this proposed design would fit in well with the rest of the seating.

By: donjuan2oo6

donjuan2oo6 — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 06:00:01 +0000

Renovate the team!!

By: rje49

rje49 — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 01:24:34 +0000

That’s what those two little sticks underneath it all is for!

By: Jeremy Fox

Jeremy Fox — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 23:05:54 +0000

I’ve been to Fenway once, pre-renovation. I enjoyed it, even though I actually had a seat with a somewhat restricted view.

In my comment, I didn’t say or imply that there are no longer any seats with bad sightlines. And I certainly didn’t say that the tickets are cheap! (which has nothing to do with the renovations; it’s all supply and demand) I simply said that the renovations have improved the park while respecting its history, so that it’s still a viable home for a major league baseball team.

If you don’t like Fenway, fair enough. Different strokes for different folks. But that’s not what my comment was about.

By: gloccamorra

gloccamorra — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 22:44:52 +0000

I haven’t seen anything about more bathrooms. I hate it when guys pee over the rail or under the seats in front of them.

By: cintiphil

cintiphil — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 22:25:00 +0000

Fox:

Just how many games have you seen at Fenway? I used to see about 5 a year for a long time. It was upgraded however, some of the impossible seats remain and they get top dollar. I would not travel ten miles to watch a game there.

By: cintiphil

cintiphil — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 22:22:24 +0000

Then a lot of us who travel to your town, just to watch a game in Wrigley, will just stay home. And, I will bet a lot of locals will stop going in addition.

By: cintiphil

cintiphil — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 22:20:23 +0000

That is what I meant in my earlier post. It is a great park and upscale neighborhood, but it needs to be modernized. So you lose a little of the old time look, but you have a great park for along time to come.

By: cintiphil

cintiphil — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 22:17:23 +0000

Drunken:
At least the team is trying to do something. I have been to Wrigley several times and I like the area around it. This is trying to keep the concept of a neighborhood field and at the same time modernize it. You should not complain. Look what the jerks are doing in Beantown. That’s right nothing. They have a crappy field where you can barely watch the game from the right filed line and the dopes think they have a great field just because it is old. I will be traveling to Chicago several times again to watch the Reds and look forward to a revised Wrigley in the same area.

By: cackalackyank

cackalackyank — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 20:10:20 +0000

One of the points is, from a FA recruiting point of view, the lack of amenities and facilities that benefit their players makes it just a bit harder to sign “marquee” players. Add that to the lack of any semblance of a winning tradition and it becomes a $$$ only package. Without some kind of overpay to balance out for the poor weight training and conditioning facilities many teams can equal, if not blow away offers from the Cubbies. A major renovation or stadium replacement are going to be a real factor in when or if the “team on the field” becomes championship caliber. They are not the sepearate issues you may believe they are.

By: roadee99

roadee99 — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:19:26 +0000

Yes. Because it’s all about the “experience” rather than the team on the field. It makes perfect sense. Our club cannot win championships so let’s figure out a way to keep these lemmings filing through the turnstyles. Shocking…

By: Alex K

Alex K — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:00:56 +0000

Because they are so cheap anyway?

By: hojo20

hojo20 — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 18:25:02 +0000

This stinks. They’re losing bleacher seating in favor of some of those ridiculous party decks underneath the old scoreboard, probably to drive up the demand ($$$) for bleacher seats.

By: snowbirdgothic

snowbirdgothic — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 18:20:53 +0000

I’m fairly certain that upper deck transforms into Optimus Prime.

By: theonlynolan

theonlynolan — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:33:53 +0000

I know they’re the Cubs but having a batting tunnel bear in the dugout seems more than a little dangerous.

By: historiophiliac

historiophiliac — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 16:56:16 +0000

Well, you don’t have to show off your segregation.

By: cackalackyank

cackalackyank — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 16:51:58 +0000

I think I read somewhere that Lambeau was one of the venues that the Ricketts visited and reviewed while preparing this plan. I think the problem is the “surrounding residential area”. The cities position has been, if I understand correctly, that they are trying to limit the development, disruption and commercialization of the neighborhood. That position seems to doom a Lambeau or Fenway type of attraction.

By: poreef

poreef — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 16:41:49 +0000

You haven’t spent much time in Wrigleyville / Lincoln Park ‘hoods of Chicago. This is a reasonably accurate depiction.

You can live a lily white life in Chicago even if there is no shortage of immigrants in the city.

By: uwsptke

uwsptke — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 16:32:18 +0000

They could really turn this into a year-round tourist attraction, in the same manner that Lambeau Field was transformed a decade ago. It only generated revenue 10 days a year, but added a few permanent restaurants, renovated pro shop, and moved the hall of fame on site, and now it’s busy year-round. The opportunity is there to make it more than just a gameday destination.

By: manute

manute — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 16:24:34 +0000

#turdpolishing

By: schlom

schlom — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 16:17:42 +0000

I want to know more about this batting tunnel bear. That seems like an unneeded feature. Will there be a bear in both tunnels or just in the visitors? It’s too bad the Red Sox didn’t have one in 2011, I’m sure it would have kept the pitchers from eating chicken and drinking beer in the clubhouse during games.

By: Alex K

Alex K — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 16:04:06 +0000

I don’t mind any of those drawings. As long as the ivy and bricks stay I don’t think it will be a big deal. I love just about everything to do with Wrigley Field, but sooner or later something is going to have to give (and hopefully it won’t be the support beams!).

Illinois is broke. Chicago is broke. If I still lived in Chicago proper I wouldn’t want my tax dollars going to a private business (no matter how much I love that laundry) when there are way bigger problems like CPS.

I would rather the Ricketts used their money to do the upgrades/changes the way that they would do themn with taxpayer money, but if they are willing to pay for it they should be able to change it how they see fit.

By: cackalackyank

cackalackyank — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:58:37 +0000

I have not been to Fenway since the renovation, from watching on the tube it certainly looks like a good compromise. I am no engineer either, but bottom line, the guts of that stadium are 100 years old too. Sooner or later Fenway too will reach a tipping point where it will no longer make sense to renovate again. See Yankee stadium. Renovated in the 1970′s, after 35 years it was no longer competitive as an MLB venue. Despite a huge historical legacy it just made more sense to start over. If I was a Cubs fan I might welcome a new park. …and when the new park opens, if some guy wants to bring in a goat…for crying out loud…LET HIM.