Congratulations! You won the internet today. :tup:

How much further will Tunney stick his neck out for the rooftop owners I wonder. The consensus I hear is that as long as the number of night games ramps up slowly over the coming years and only Rickett's money is going in it's pretty hard to be opposed at this point.

Are you blind? Or are you just another one of those trolls who think that because the team isn't overspending in free agency that they are not building a winning baseball team?

He has cut ties and eaten the cost of the old front office, hired on three of the most sought after baseball men in the industry (Epstein/Hoyer/McLeod), eaten Quade's contract, hired Svuem, eaten Zambrano's contract, eaten Soto's contract, they have signed Castro to a 6 year extension, Soler to a 9 year deal, Jackson for 4 years, sought out flippable free agents and used them for high ceiling prospects, traded for Rizzo, drafted and signed Almora, have 4 prospects in BA's top 100... all four brought in under Ricketts ownership, etc etc etc

Seriously, what more would you want them to do? Sign Bourn only to watch him flounder for two years while the team dabbles in mediocrity, then become a overpriced niche player? Sign Greinke to a wildly overvalued $140mm contract with his known anxiety issues? Free agency is the most inefficient way to build long term success in baseball. Even the Yankees with their wild spending ways have a ton of homegrown players either on the roster or who were good enough to be used to trade for other top talent. Its been a single year, give it some damn time.

I think it was a joke.

So Tunney has parking and aesthetic concerns...? Yet his rooftop clubs have added thousands of seats and club space increasing overall game day capacity in the area, and he never asked the roof top clubs to provide parking facilities in return. Aesthetically who have the roof tops been accountable to ? Most of those buildings have been chopped up with huge window cut outs, every type of seating from aluminum stands, green seats, brown seats....configured every which way... Tunney is a prime reason why alderman should be consulted with but not have final say when there is a city economic asset that happens to reside in their ward. It should be the mayor's call.

If it's a joke, it is a tiresome one...

I've been hoping for an owner to do exactly what Ricketts is doing since the day Greg Maddux walked out the door. Those who feel otherwise are frankly, ignorant fans.

Wrigley Field Deal: $500 million in renovations

Chicago Sun-Times:Long-awaited Wrigley Field rehab deal expected by Monday's opener

A 300-space parking garage? Is that new or was it always part of the deal?

video scoreboard in left?! dislike. :yuck:

I hate video scoreboards, but I'd rather have it in left than right field. Maybe they'll covet up that awful Budweiser building.

The 300-space garage sucks too. The streets in the area already can't handle gameday traffic. Taking transit is no picnic either, but even if parking were available I can't imagine why you'd ever want to drive to Wrigley.

That was news to me. With years of discussions about the "triangle building," I'm surprised the existence of this gravel lot didn't come up more.
I would be impressed if they built a parking garage that incorporated landscaping on the top level or even a green roof, as I think some Soldier Field parking was done (or superior to that), so that (among other reasons) we don't end up with aerial views of Wrigley that resemble that stadium-plus-parking-ocean feel common in other cities.

------

Would it be crazy to have a discounted remote lot somewhere along the Brown Line (maybe even nearer the Kennedy) and have the CTA operate some express trains from there via Belmont, without stopping or boarding, to Wrigley? I assume there are efficiency and congestion issues with using shuttle busses.

^^^ They already have a remote lot on Addison or Irving Park near the Kennedy and run tons of shuttle CTA busses to it. What we really need is for the Brown Line just to run to the Blue Line so everyone can ditch their cars out in Rosemont.


The parking garage is new and a result of NIMBY bitching about parking. Little do they realize this will simply unleash a horde of cars on their neighborhood during game day while not improving the parking situation what-so-ever. All this will do is change the number of people driving to the game and parking in the area from N to N+300, massively aggravating the situation. That area only continues to get denser as more and more frame two flats and single story retail buildings are torn down for massive frat boy condos so I can't wait to see how miserable those NIMBYS are in a few years.

^ Ahhh, but that's the beauty of it. Those of us who realize this should just let these numb-nuts have their garage. It's a classic case of "be careful what you wish for".

More cars, more congestion, more hassle for the neighborhood. Oh, and I'm sure the Ricketts will charge serious $$$ for the garage, only generating more revenue for themselves. Stupid NIMBY's....

Frankly I'll be glad to see that vacant gravel lot go, even if it's for a garage. That means we'll be seeing three underutilized parcels go in one shot: the McDonalds, the triangle lot, and the gravel lot. I'll take it.

I couldn't give less of a shit about the congestion the garage will cause since I make sure to never venture past Ashland on a gameday.

^ Yeah, all in all if the Ricketts do invest in the stadium and the vacant lots around them without using public funds, they certainly deserve to be rewarded. That's how it works. I'm just saying that too many people think that adding parking reduces congestion, and I have no idea how they come to such a silly conclusion.

This would be the kind of creative thinking we need more of.

The problem is that many games either start or end during the PM rush, when there really isn't any capacity for more trains at Clark Junction.

I guess you could do this with a temporary platform on one side at Racine or Seminary and a crossover. This certainly would have been a no-brainer in the 1920s, but now with ADA requirements, extensive building codes for public facilities, and so forth, this would probably cost far more than running bus shuttles.

Most people driving to the game are not driving solo; the new number will be more like N+(300*3).

To be fair, many people in the neighborhood are not asking for more parking. It is a small % of the residents who don't have the brain capacity to understand that More Parking does not equal less traffice. This parking structure will turn both Grace St and Clark into a nightmare on gamedays, as a resident of the neighborhood it really is bothersome.

The City will get parking taxes as well.

I agree on the supid NIMBY part.

300 parking spaces sounds random for that high traffic area. It's almost like it would be much more efficient when games aren't going on and people just need to park to go out on a Saturday.

There is a lot of drama going on, the rooftop owners are threatening to sue if they lose their views.

Here's my take on how this will play out:

The Ricketts are VERY wealthy. Their jumbotrons are almost certain to obstruct some views, so they will have to come to some agreement with the rooftop owners to compensate them. That will be their primary effort.

If that fails, they will win approval anyhow, build the screens, and let the rooftop owners sue them. All the while, they will battle it out in court and drag this out for as long as possible, all while the rooftop owners continue to lose revenue. Eventually they will all go into default and lose their properties to foreclosure, and the Ricketts will sweep in and buy all of their properties at a discount. Or, in lieu of foreclosure, the rooftop owners will take a last minute deal from the Ricketts out of desperation and likely with very unfavorable terms.

I dont see how the rooftop owners could realistically sue (not that realism has stopped the filing of lawsuits) unless they have some kind of written agreement guaranteeing them a view of the field.

I know they have some kind of agreement where they pay a portion of their ticket sales, but whoever wrote that contract would have been a fool to include perpetual accommodation of their view. As a non-sports person, the whole rooftop situation strikes me as almost farcical. People realized that by standing on their rooftops they could see games (which the field charges money to see) for free, so they start selling tickets to their roofs. I'd imagine it's only tolerated because there's no legal protection for line-of-sight to a sports field and because if they erected a wall simply for spite they'd lose some face with fans.

If the Ricketts were smart they would try to attract the catered corporate/group events that the rooftops provide for by offering competitive suite options of their own, anyway.

Allegedly the agreements the rooftop venues have with the Cubs was struck while the Tribune still owned the team and protects their right to a view of the field until 2021 or something like that. I bet that it all plays out like the urban politician is suggesting.

Waveland and Kenmore up to where the Toyota sign stands right now would rarely limit any views. If you want zero obstructed views you somehow build it outside the stadium on Waveland and Kenmore crossing over Kenmore.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/1942446...eld-walls.html

Wrigley deal said to be close and include extending right- and left-field walls


BY FRAN SPIELMAN

City Hall Reporter

fspielman@suntimes.com

Last Modified: Apr 11, 2013 07:29PM

Marathon talks to renovate Wrigley Field are “in the bottom of the 9th” ...

The mayor’s optimistic outlook about a deal that appeared to be sealed a week ago comes amid word that the right- and left-field walls of 99-year-old Wrigley would be extended as much as ten feet outward — taking out the sidewalk on Sheffield and a lane of traffic on Waveland — to give the Cubs more concession space and mitigate the impact of a giant video scoreboard in left and a see-through sign in right on rooftop clubs overlooking Wrigley.

The Cubs plan also includes a...

In 2006, the Cubs agreed to extend the outfield walls eight feet onto the sidewalks ...

Now, the city and the Cubs are talking about an instant replay.

Both sides agreed that demolishing the outfield walls in right- and left-fields was part of the plan, but the motive depends on whom you talk to.

The Cubs insist the move was being made solely to preserve rooftop views and mitigate blockage caused by the two new signs that will help bankroll a $300 million renovation of the landmark ballpark.

“The plan would be to move the wall as far back as possible so the Jumbotron would have less impact on rooftop views. ....

“It does open up opportunities for us inside the ballpark — by making the concourses wider and opening up additional concession space beneath the bleachers. But, this particular idea originated based on the desire to accommodate the rooftops, period.”

City Hall had a different take.

“The Cubs came to us and said, ‘We’re landlocked. We need to get maximum use out of Wrigley Field.’ This way, they can expand their footprint even though they’re in a landlocked situation,” said a top mayoral aide, who asked to remain anonymous.

“This is not being done for the rooftops. We’re doing this to help the Cubs. But, there is an added benefit that will further reduce the impact on [rooftop] sight lines.”

The top mayoral aide noted that similar street, sidewalk and alley “vacations” are routinely done for developers across the city.

“We’re doing it for Loyola [on Kenmore to create more of a campus atmosphere near new dormitories]. We’re also doing it for Norfolk Southern [RR]. It’s pretty normal,” the source said.

...

^ Awesome. Lets get a deal signed, a landmark ballpark renovated, and a hotel built!

Not really awesome in my book. In fact they are doing everything pretty much ass backwards IMO. They are really only doing a superficial touch up of the one part of the ballpark, the grandstand and second deck, that I think could use a whole demolition or overhaul for aesthetic and structural reasons.

They are basically defacing and fugllifying the best part of the park (outfield and vistas onto Lake View) and making a mockery of the use of landmark designation further in this city in order to put up oversize jumbo tron kiss cams that is reported to be three times the size of the current center field scoreboard. And given these are the hick owners who have brought us the shack that is the Captain Morgan Club, the Noodle, and used car lot Toyota signage I am not very optimistic on what plans they have for the hotel and triangle building.

Given that this is the third most visited tourist site in the state I wish the alderman and city had wielded more control over the process even if it meant using some of the amusement taxes to do a tasteful and collaborative redesign of Wrigley. I'm not sure why the Bears and White Sox get access to that money but the Cubs get excluded. Anyway, at best it will be a missed opportunity or even looking very schlocky and worse for it at the end of the rehab.

Uhhhh........ :uhh::???:

WHAT?

They haven't even started doing anything yet, and you've already condemned the whole project as a 'mockery of a landmark', 'defacement', 'schlocky', and a 'missed opportunity'.

Well then, I guess you stepped off of a time machine, if that's how it looks in the future...

The renderings of the rehab of the grandstand have come out. Very conservative and under whelming in my opinion. Not to mention it doesn't address some of the more important aspects to fans like obstructed view seats which take up a sizable number of seats in the upper rows of the lower deck.

It doesn't exactly take a genius to figure that a 6k sq.ft. jumbo tron (3 time larger then the current center field scoreboard) will dramatically alter and in cases block the look of the outfield sweep and vistas that are very much a part of the Wrigley experience and that the landmarks thoughtfully, in my view, were intended to protect. I don't know about you but I think I would much prefer looking out to into Lake View and eve the ugly rooftops then at an overstuffed kiss cam appealing to the ADD set. It would be one thing if I was convinced that such advertising was all that lucrative in the grand scheme to the Cubs bottom line but I have my doubts.

And you are right one has to reserve judgement the hotel and triangle building before renders come out but all I said was that given the Ricketts small track record of disregard for amendments they have made to the park and their plans for future ones there is frankly little reason to be optimistic about them having priority about quality design.

Renderings?
 

Please... unveil these said "renderings".

You didn't see in the previous post where I said I hadn't seen them?

Tell me why I deserve to be optimistic though given the Ricketts small track record of Captain Morgan Shacks, Noodles, Toyota signage, and declared plans for a 6k foot jumbo tron?

Now there are reports that the Ricketts want a skybridge between their new hotel and Wrigley, crossing Clark St.

Man, "no taxpayer money for Wrigley" is starting to look awfully short-sighted now. Be careful what you wish for.

Yes, skybridges are typically anathema to good urban planning, but this wouldn't have much of an impact on street-level activity given that most Cubs fans won't be staying at the hotel and will instead be wandering around the ballpark before and after games. The Ricketts family is putting up an unprecedented $300M of its own money. You have to expect to make a few concessions. This is one I'd be willing to make, especially considering that one of the ugly surface lots near Wrigley would be occupied by a hotel.

Agreed. Wrigleyville's sidewalks won't suddenly be dead just because of a skybridge.

Of course, I don't quite understand the need for it. How hard can it be to cross Clark St?

Exactly. But you have to think like tourists. In their minds, it presents the path of least resistance.

I believe according to the earlier released plans the whole seating bowl is to be replaced with the existing dimensions remaining intact so the visual historic sight lines will not be altered. I think the captain morgan stand was a tribune structure before the Ricket's bought the team. I agree there is no reason why other teams get the subsidy and the Cubs don't.

I fear that these negotiations are taking a life of their own leading to leaps that are slowly eroding the simplistic charm of the park, which is what makes it unique.....for now.

Never thought I'd ever say this but I miss the Trib ownership. It's getting harder and harder to give a fuck about the team and organization. Wrigley used to be my "church". It was one of the main things that the city of Chicago had that really made me want to move back for. That's becoming less and less the case these days.

You must not have thought much about Chicago if Wrigley is the main thing bringing you back.

I am obviously a huge fan of Chicago and I don't watch baseball, never been to Wrigley, and don't care much for the scene in Wrigleyville. To each their own I guess...

"one of the main things"



As for a supposed skybridge... WTF? One of the elements that makes Wrigley so great is the pedestrian experience, the neighborhood is a great area for people on the ground, what exactly does a skybridge accomplish?

Meh, that sounds like a crock of s--t to me. Obviously if they cared about visual "historic" sight lines they wouldn't mess with the sweep of the bleachers or the vistas of the outfield. There isn't much to be preserved of the sight lines of the grandstand other then to make them better by removing obstructed viewing behind I-beams and the overhanging sky boxes which impede views. That would involve a full tear down of the current grandstand though I would think.

To me it just sniffs as if they are just too cheap to do a full scale rebuild of the grand stand and upper deck. Which would be a considerable expense but if we are talking about doing things right.....What I am surprised about is that a full rebuild or not there would seem to be a perfect opportunity to add sky boxes beyond the top rows of the second deck and the Cubs don't have that in their plans. I would think that would add a great deal of potential revenue and it wouldn't be taking away from the park.
I think you may be right. I think it was under a different name but the Ricketts sure haven't made an improvement on it. And not to get too puritanical but I'm not sure given the number of kids that roam around Wrigley if the best sponser was a friendly pirate who slings rum (even I love a little Captain Morgans myself now and then)
Right. And I hate the tax subsides that all professional teams extort from governments. I wouldn't mind at all if there was a law against it. However I just don't get why the Cubs and Cubs fans have to pay a punitive tax and not receive any kind of benefit from that tax the way the Bears and Sox have.

Plus, there's something very democratic, and public-square-like, about the whole Wrigley experience, from the age and charm, to the view of the neighbors' residences and the "friendly confines" feel that they contribute to, to the fact that a public transportation station is practically attached to the stadium.

A skybridge is way, way out of sync with all that. It will, in particular, affect the feel of the Clark St experience, probably all the way down to Roscoe.

The 3750 N Halsted (@ Bradley) tower crane is visible from inside Wrigley I believe (noticed it during evening news coverage of a game the other day). So, maybe this has been mentioned before, this new building will become a part of the outfield skyline. The skyline (such as it is) isn't all that pretty from there, so I wonder if this will improve it a bit.

One of the main things (as untitledreality already pointed out)

For me, Wrigley has always been one of the unique American experiences. It was something Chicago had one-up on NYC. It's honestly something I've almost lost complete interest in these past few years. Not that it matters as the Cubs will reap rather large financial rewards by doing whatever is in their best interests.

But you wouldn't know about the emotional attachment many Cub fans have to the stadium. As someone who hasn't ever been to a Cubs game, or doesn't care for the Wrigleyville scene, this whole thing is a non-issue for you.

This process has been on the same level as the banal redevelopment of Maxwell St. or the Prairie District. I'm not against redevelopment of certain things but at least approach change through a fresh and creative lens. As clunky as aspects of the Soldier Field development plan turned out, the overall approach was at least clear in its modernity and increased intimacy.

I'm less concerned about the planning aspects of the skybridge and more concerned with the architectural consequences. It will be very weird to have a skybridge flying over the Ernie Banks statue and plugging into the facade. I think this compromises the historic appearance of the stadium far more than the advertisements do.

If the Ricketts were to propose (and fund) a pedway, I'd be all for it. I really don't care whether tourists mix with the hoi palloi on the street or not.

I feel similar.

One need not be a fan of the Cubs or even of baseball to want the renovation to be done thoughtfully. Not so much for the benefit of either the Cubs or their fans as for the city at large. It would be a rather short sighted to see this reconstruction as an iusse limited to just the club and its fans.

Just as one need not care for boats or water in wanting to see Navy Pier redone right one need not be a Cubs fan to want to see Wrigley touched up well. Open up almost travel book on Chicago and one of the first things listed to do is to "take in a day game at Wrigley". It is still I believe the second or third most visited tourist site in our state. Outside of downtown it is probably the most visited part of the city by suburban, regional, and national visitors. It is important to do right and not cut off the nose despite its face. There should be more public discussion about what makes Wrigley special to those that do venture to Wrigley both locally and from outside. I would argue the outfield sweep, bleachers, and vistas are the highest on that list.

I really feel that the Ricketts are being extremely short sighted and consider their plans perilously close to defacing Wrigley's best assets and lessening its appeal. All the while making very minimal if any improvements to aspects of the parks that could use the real overhaul. And Rahm doesn't seem to have any intent of directing a more thoughtful reconstruction. To him its just a headline grabbing win if the Cubs pick up the full tab no matter what the end result. And Tunney cares but for seemingly all the wrong reasons.

^^ I would figure the skybridge would just hop across Clark into the "triangle buliding" -- traversing clear across the plaza directly into the stadium would indeed be a ridiculous eyesore. Although I haven't been following what might be going on with the triangle lot in these negotiations.

A subterranean connection, with limited access between basements of the respective structures to prevent public mobs from peeing and spilling beer in there at all hours, is a much better idea.

who do these people think they are ? Northwestern Memorial Hospital
 

I hope this pedestrian bridge crap gets shot down, if not in the broad overall agreement, then in the city permit process.

First of all how many hotel guests are going to have reasons to be using the bridge to go to Cub front offices ? Hardly any. This structure is primarily for the benefit of Cub executives and office workers to use the bridge to go to lunch, work out, and run to conferences in the hotel with out having to walk outside and endure the weather, street rif raf and the other harsh realities of urban living they supposedly embrace and want to preserve.

No skybridge. Seriously you let one happen and they'll be going up all over Chicago. The only places that should be allowed to build skybridges and immune to public objection are hospitals or office buildings / malls connected to elevated transit stations. That's it.

I'm worried this will be some monumental structure like the Sox skybridge over 35th.

Crain's has the outlines of the deal, to be announced tomorrow.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...n-deal-reached

It includes all the things that have been mentioned so far, including a left field jumbotron, expansion into Sheffield/Waveland, more parking, and a skybridge between the hotel and triangle building. Lots of things to hate, including this little surprise:

:brickwall:

^ Gotta let a business adapt to the demands of a new era. Modifying Wrigley is needed to save it. Fenway had to do this as well.

I'm reading the same article, and I'm just not reading anything all that outrageous. By the way, it appears that the pedestrian bridge connects the hotel to the triangle building, not the stadium itself.