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.
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
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... |
Quote:
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?
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Of course, I don't quite understand the need for it. How hard can it be to cross Clark St? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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.
|
Quote:
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... |
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 4:59 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.