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.