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..

Zell no to state bid for Wrigley
 

..

These newspapers should be ashamed of themselves. Mars has no rights to change wrigley field's name. Wrigley Field is named for William Wrigley, not the Wrigley gum co. At the time the stadium was built, most ballparks were named for their owners. Secondly, the partial naming rights thing is about doing what the yankess are doing with their new ballpark, naming sections and gate entrances to the park. It will always be wrigley field, but we may have to sacrifice some historic integrity to keep it that way. As a diehard myself, I am willing to do that in order to renovate the park and ensure that it remains for another 94 years for my grandchildren and great grandchildren to see. The only negative will be that F'n stupid parking garage and promenade. That thing is atrocious, but I guess in this day and age we have no choice. All the fans from the suburbs should take the metra down and the red line to the ballpark, but that would make going to a game an all-day event. Oh no!

Well since the deal with the state has died and it doesn't the condition of Wrigley doesn't seem dire I am guessing any plans to revamp Wrigley will not be seen for a number of years at least......

..

Inland makes bid for Wrigley Field
 

..

Sun-Times render in article.....

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r...0708wrig-1.jpg

^ A big improvement from the crapola planned before.

Of course, the surest way to tell if a project has improved is whether NIMBY's oppose it, which they clearly will. Crains has posted an article about it right now; let the NIMBY bitching begin.

As of 2008 people still actually believe that providing more parking leads to reduced traffic congestion. And Barack Obama is a muslim

:uhh: hmmm... i'm extremely skeptical of this being a good thing for wrigley...

Least there is less parking. *shrugs*

Like at Cumberland and Howard? Who drives to Wrigley? And more importantly, why are you still sober enough to drive home?

The design is standard boring stadium architecture, but at least it's built to the lot line and forms a streetwall. Maybe we can get rid of the McDonalds drive thru next?