CHICAGO | Wrigley Field Redevelopment News
 

^ Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Zell wants Landmark protection ordinance revoked, and a name change to go along with it. I'm thinking otherwise.


Greg Couch had a great article in the sun times today.... spelled out what Zell Sells.....

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/couch...greg29.article

Cubs fans will not allow it.

he owns the building. Cubs fans can't do anything about it other than not go to the building anymore. And Daley is a Sox fan.

Zell's got a point with the naming rights. I seriously doubt the name will change, but I also doubt Wrigley is going to get away with not paying for the free advertising they've been getting for so long

^ Even Daley recognizes the iconic importance of Wrigley Field to Chicago, Sox fan or not

WAIT just a second, are they planning on tearing it down? If so I hope people chain themselves to it! Why would they?

Fans can only do so much. For comparison, look at the outrage expressed over Americans (Malcom Glazer and family) getting sole interest in Manchester United. they were burned in effigy but you haven't heard of ManU being outright ignored by the fans or the media because of thsi sacrilegious act.

Yes, Americans aren't soccer nuts, but the fact that both ManU and the Chicago Cubs are legendary professional sports franchises and endeared to their fanbases is the point I am trying to make... The fans can only do so much. it's still a business.

I certainly am not advocating for Zell -- but it's a cold hard fact that even legendary venues and teams need to be profitable. It's part of the reason they planned to replace Fenway park (since scuttled), it's why they are replacing Yankee Stadium, it's why naming rights were sold for Comisky Park, why Boston Garden got replaced, etc

Can't they somehow fix the outside of the building? It is horrific!!! 23 layers of enamel will not cover all the issues.

SOMEONE STOP them from using those cheap ass paver stones as sidewalk!!!!!!

Who ever did the Sheffield and Waveland corner....they have the right idea.....let them fix it up.

Keep the seating area like is and do what you want with it.

NEVER TOUCH THE SCORE BOARD!!!!

I am confused. They make a killing off of it now. So why do they need all the city breaks? If they improve it they will make even more money off of it. Chicago does NOT need to give the rich like Zell welfare money or anyone else who wants to own the place. And shouldn't the city be paid for all the inconveniences the extra crowds will bring...more public toliets...staff the police, CTA, with way more money...then give them something.

Cubs fans don't own the park.

Too bad he didn't have the balls to say anything when they changed Comiskey to U.S Cellular... But I guess I should be used to the southside being dumped on.

what was he gonna do? pass a law to protect the name? Its all about money and US Cellular paid a lot of it.

Wrigley Field is a nice icon, but again, money rules here. If Zell sells it, the Cubs will just have to look for a new place to lose for another 100 years.

^ ok, first of all, the cubs will NEVER leave wrigley field. Wrigley is a huge part of what makes the cubs the cubs.

second, the name isn't going to change. People will always call it wrigley. I still call the sox place comiskey (even though "the cell" is somewhat catchy)

its true zell owns the stadium (and the cubs) and lots of other things. He can do what he wants. but you'd kind of wish he wasn't an asshole, i guess...

what does this mean? The Cubs are a baseball team. It shouldnt matter where they play. They should be more concerned about winning a title, then what field they play on. I guess this mentality explains why every game at Wrigley is half filled with tourists and trixies who could care less whats actually happening on the field.

I'd like to see Wrigley stay and my guess is it will, but the name means nothing and people should get over it. I still call the Cell, Comiskey and I would still call it Wrigley too.

I think anyone attempting to put there name on this stadium wont want to mask what the name means. It is actually more flattering to a corporate brand to place it along with the stadium name, the brand will draw more from that aspect. It could be something simple like *company name* at Wrigley Field or *company name*'s Wrigley Field. It may sound horrible but we would get used to it and the stadium is still aloud to keep its history. People are concerned but it doesnt mean we have a loss, we just have to prevent the wrong things from happening. Even with this method the score boards would easily stay.

You know, the Wrigley company could buy the naming rights to the stadium and nothing would have to change. I don't think that's an outlandish idea. I know a lot of us don't even think of the chewing gum company when we think of the field, but the Wrigley company still exists and they are getting a free ride at the expense of the Tribune Company. So instead of griping about Zell (who's just trying to get the Trib company out of a budget whole, unlike the state and the county, and the nation for that matter) how about you Cub fans petition Wrigley Co. to buy their namesake stadium, hmm?

But then again, I'm a south-sider, a Sox fan, and my wife works for the Tribune company so I'd rather see a name change than see a lot of people lose their jobs.

It is an outlandish idea, because the Wrigley Company has expressed zero interest in obtaining any sort of naming rights.

As you said, no one thinks of the chewing gum company when the parks name is mentioned. So why would they pay tens of millions of dollars for an "official" naming right that will have zero effect on increasing their bottom line?

I never knew it was named after the chewing gum company. I always thought it was just named for some long dead Chicago big wig.

If the Yankee's can plan in a house other than what Ruth built, don't think that it couldn't happen here.

Besides, it's not like the name of the stadium hasn't been changed once before.

A long dead Chicago big wig who founded that chewing gum company.

Part of what most gets me is the childish arrogance that Kenney and Zell in particular have addressed these issues. The "we can do what we want and we don't care" is not really a good PR job. Just tell the reasons why it is necessarily at least somewhat truthfully (the Tribune and/or Zell what the money in their revenue streams) and shut up. There really trying to run an end around against the landmark provisions. :rolleyes:

The article also mentions HOK as the stadium architects, I know that is there specialty but this gives me the idea that we are going to see something completely lame and unoriginal. I mean if you are going to desecrate the place why not doing something very innovative with it? Instead I feel we will get some cheap historical imitation ball park. :hell:

^Reading bullshit like that does nothing but raise my blood pressure far beyond healthy levels. It sucks that wanting to preserve the name is the completely irrational thing to do (economically speaking). If only there was some sort of statistical regression they could run on the economics of corporate re-branding to discover that the historical name of the institution was the variable with the greatest contributing factor to ticket sales and therefore not something to be fucked with.

A squeeze at Wrigley
 

..

A Ball Park so Iconic they named a neighborhood after it.....

Zell...... Weird that the guy wants to sell the team to reduce debt on his Trib play, and yet is getting all intertwined with all these long term deals....

People can argue for Zell all they want with regards to the financial issues, but I'll feel no sadness if during his final days it's a very long & painfully drawn out end. He has so much money and seems only interested in getting more at whatever cost. It's a big "f*ck you" to Chicago, the Wrigleyville neighborhood, and Cubs fans/baseball fans.

(bracing for a backlash from certain posters)

Yeah...you just wished a guy a painful death for talking about changing Wrigley Field. Time for you to step back and take a deep breath. Put that in perspective a bit and come back later.

Anyway, Wrigley Field won't be "lost" if they change the name. And they're not going to tear it down or renovate it TOO much because it IS the Cubs. If the Cubs played in Hoffman Estates or something people would slowly stop caring. The Yankees are about a tradition- of winning, Yankee Stadium has always been in the background, especially after the changes in the 70s. The Red Sox are about a tradition of being very competitive and almost (until recently) winning and a historic ballpark.

The Cubs are about the nightlife of the area, the ivy, the afternoon games in a gorgeous place. They're about watching games at Bernie's when you can't get tickets and partying with the crowd afterwards. They're about walking through the neighborhood around it drunk in a beautiful urban Chicago enviroment on a warm summer day.

The Cubs aren't about the team winning. That's beside the point. That's not why you go to a Cubs game. It's nice if they win. If they don't, that's cool too. Just like it's nice if Journey plays a great set, but the concert is still gonna be great for the atmosphere.

The Cubs know this. They know they rake in gate sales because it's more about the 81 concerts a year than it is about baseball. They're not going to move the Cubs or change Wrigley too much. So it's hardly "lost".

.....

I disagree. The Cubs are popular because of the whole Cubs experience, which is heavily dependent both on the ballpark and on the neighborhood (Wrigleyville). Any sports fan knows that this isn't a Cubs town because of the stellar product they put on the field year in year out. The Cubs sell an experience, not just a sports game, which is why teams playing in soulless stadiums surrounded by acres of parking (Blackhawks, ahem) get miserable attendance when they suck. Why bother going if the experience sucks and the game sucks? I still go to Cubs games occasionally (CWS fan, personally) but it ain't for the baseball.

^

....amen to Lucas

Someone should start a grass roots funding campaign to raise enough money to rename the stadium with something objectionable - just to see if there's a limit to the greed.

I suggest "Massengill Disposable Douche Field".

It was something I was happy to do last summer in my trip to Chicago. Having the whole Cubs experience was amazing. We sat way the hell out in outfield and it still felt like we were apart of the game. Even if the Cubs lost bad. You cant have Wrigleyville without Wrigley Ballpark.

:haha: Sorry but this sounds delusional or an excuse for not winning a title for 100 years. Baseball is a business of winning, not who plays in the coolest park. If you ask true Cub, or should I say baseball fan, they'd gladly take a few World Series titles even if it meant playing somewhere else.. And if they win, revenues will not suffer from playing somewhere else, or under a different name.


I hope Wrigley stays. I think its a great historical landmark to the game of baseball. But lets not lose sight of what the Cubs goals are, which is winning, first and foremost.

Exactly. winning. Yankee Stadium is being replaced. Will they lose their fan base? Not if they keep dominating, or at least competing, every year.

So you're saying Cub fans would rather have a cool stadium then actually win anything? Am I misunderstanding you?

Wow - I can't believe a off-hand mention about a stadium name change, a misguided debate over a ballpark sale to the state, and discussion of structural rehabilitation for the ballpark can inspire this much argument.

Nobody's remotely mentioned tearing down the ballpark, and certainly not moving the Cubs to anyplace else.

Just take a chill pill. No corporation is fool enough to totally change the name of Wrigley Field, a sale to the state is a horrible use of bond-issuing (and therefore unlikely for the foreseeable future), and structural rehabilitation will help Wrigley to stay around for ANOTHER century - so why are you all acting like the place is about to be demolished?

I personally welcome some sort of cosmetic upgrades to Wrigley. The place has looked like shit ever since the team mounted those concrete panels on the facade - stop acting like Wrigley has remained in stasis since it was built. It's the home of a baseball team, and the demands of the team and of fans evolve over time. Trying to keep Wrigley forever unchanged is a losing battle - either the stadium must adapt to changing usage through renovation, or it becomes obsolete and must be totally replaced. I believe that renovations and additions can be made in a tasteful and respectful manner, and the recent bleacher expansion has only demonstrated this.

It doesn't really matter what it sounds like to you; it's the truth.

Baseball is a business of filling seats. Usually that's done through winning. It's not done that way for the Cubs. The team has went to the playoffs what 5 times in the last 30 years? That 5 times remains consistent if you go back seventy years.

A 'true' Cub fan might tell you exactly what you said. But those aren't what fills up a 40 thousand seat building 81 times a summer.

It's like you're arguing what they should be (all about the winning) and not accepting what they ARE (an experience).


That's not the goal for them. It's a perk.

The Yankees aren't the Cubs. Or vice versa.

I think the majority of the people who go to Cubs games- who only loosely can be refered to as fans- would rather go to Wrigley and watch an 80 win team than they would go to Schaumburg and watch a 90 win team. "Cubs fans" do not necessarily equal "all the people that go to Cubs games". Half of them still think Grace is on first. Doesn't make the atmosphere any less fun at all.

^ I'm sorry that is so ridiculous. You are simply wrong. These are professional baseball players, and they want to win. If you ask every individual in the Cubs organization, from top to bottom, they will tell you winning a title is the ultimate goal.

And if you think that the Cubs would still be at 35,000+ in another stadium somewhere else, you're wrong.

Now which bottom line do you think owners are looking at?

If they win, absolutely they will be. Winning teams in any sport have proved that, probably throughout history. I think you are insulting a lot of Cub fans. The true fans care about winning. Go over to a Cubs forum and ask that question. See whats more important, a title or wheere (or under what name) they play.

Wrigley Field will not be torn down. Wrigley Field's name won't change, and I don't care what any article says or what rumors start. Renovation is estimated around 250 mil. New yankee stadium will cost 1 bil. If other teams can afford to pay for new stadiums more than double or triple the cost of Wrigley's renovation, then the renovation will most certainly happen. A company putting its name on Wrigley is a PR disaster- companies weren't interested in paying anywhere near the amount it would've been worth it to the Red Sox to take that PR risk. Everyone does need to chill, and wait to see what happens. Chances are there will be some very creative branding involving parts of Wrigley Field and perhaps parts of Wrigleyville itself. I am a die hard fan, and in no way would I support a World Series winning Cubs organization if they sacrificed all that is left of historical sports tradition in this town. I take the red line to games and drink at the bars- there is nothing I'd rather do in life than enjoy a day at the ballpark and neighborhood, and even people like Zell know how important this is to a lot of others who share my views. I'm totally on the same page as you, VivaLFuego, about the experience being worth more than people sometimes perceive. I expect a lot of little things to eventually change about Wrigley perhaps, but not the name or the basic design of the ballpark once renovated. They will try to keep the gritty feel as much as possible.

I always thought sports stadiums were all about experience...otherwise everyone would just watch it on tv, right?

how about a tradition of winning? not as important? :???:
You go ahead and enjoy that, while I take the red line south and enjoy a day at the ballpark, and a World Series winning team.

You show me a forum with 40,000 members that can attend 81 games and I'll concede. Until then, you need to understand that alot of people go to Wrigley for the ambience. Without that, it's just Comiskey. And the Sox don't do well when they're not good. Hell, they were playing great in the early to mid 90s and they still weren't drawing well.

I have no doubt the majority of diehard Cubs fans would appreciate a World Series in Berwyn over a few playoff appearances in Wrigleyville. But AGAIN diehard Cub fans and the people that continue to fill Wrigley almost to capacity all summer long are not necessarily the same people.

I remember multitudes of times going to Wrigley as something to do, with only a few of us actually following the team, with like 8 girls and 4 guys who didn't know Tuffy Rhodes from Turk Wendell. We were going for the atmosphere, for a party. And we certainly weren't alone. And wouldn't be today if we went with the same mindset.

You can take the Red Line to 35th and go to a Sox game. Or you can do what a great deal of Sox fans do and not bother with it and just watch it on TV. Going to Comiskey is going to an amusement park solely to ride the rollercoasters: It might be the main draw, but you kinda wanna do more while you're there, too. Wrigley is like Disneyland: You can ride your rollercoaster (watch the game) but it's got a whole lot more as far as enviroment to it as well. Shit, I grew up on 33rd and Lowe and know Bridgeport doesn't come close to offering the same quality Wrigleyville does.

That can bother you all night if you want, you can argue that isn't how it should be and maybe you're right. But if winning is the only thing that matters, why is it the Cubs have consistently outdrawn the Sox for the last 20 years? Serious Cubs fans might want them to win over everything, but all those people that frequent Wrigley are there for alot more than just the game on the field.

I think you underestimate Tribune arrogance. Its because they think the Tribune charisma is so thick and build in that they feel like they could give naming rights and add lucrative skyboxes and still fill the place up based on "nostalgia" even if it radically changes.

I think the whole grandstand would be as good as gone. If the plan is to do a tacky retro or something modern who knows, I am betting on retro (unfortunately). I would hope for something like the PNC grandstand something very low hung tiers and with inconspicuous skyboxes but I also think that is likely naive.

One would also hope that a firm or the Trib wouldn't want a PR disaster but the Trib is not going to really care much longer as they likely see significant short term economic gains which would be very appealing considering the state of the media empire and their is always a company dumb enough to think they can persuade the public to warm up to them.

........

The ISFA isn't going away on this
 

..

....

Here is a sickening article from business week.

^^ the article is way off. The headquarters are staying in Chicago, they might even be adding jobs, and there has been no talk of Mars selling Wrigley Field's naming rights. Another doom and gloom bullshit example of journalism.

:previous: Unless Mars also bought the Tribune from Zell it doesn't even have control of the naming rights to Wrigley Field so they couldn't possible sell what they don't own. Even if ownership hadn't changed to Mars Wrigley Co. wasn't likely to start paying the Tribune or ISFA to keep naming rights.

........With Mars now owning the lot of the Lakeshore Athletic club though it will be interesting to know what in the heck Mars intends to do with it (but that is another subject).

exactly.

and yes, that LAC is the biggest eyesore and waste of prime land in all of River North/Steeterville. It is an enormous piece of land. I hope high hopes for that spot.

They have to aleady have someone coming up with detailed plans and ideas for a renovations. I am very curious on what they look like. I have hard time thinking they could put many of the new amenties and overhaul they claim are needed while also keeping intact the "historic nature" of the park. If that is the case I am not sure if they should ever try and I sure as hope they don't put a mediocre retro-touch found in so many ballparks. Whatever has to come down put a very modern forward face (especially on the outside) in its place. I have a bad feeling we are going to get an ugly marriage of something between Lucien Lagrange and HOK attempting to pay a lame homage of some sort..