Quote:
Originally Posted by ehilton44
Of course they probably can be. But professional sports teams, whether we like it or not, are still businesses. I sort of feel like there was really no win-win situation and this is the closest we'll get. I feel like the jumbotron is the price we pay for the city/state not shelling out $100 million (the federal gov't will give tax breaks if Wrigley is placed on the National Register of Historic Places. Adler, Shedd, and Orchestra Hall all benefited from these tax breaks, as did Fenway.)
I think the hotel will be a fine addition to Wrigleyville, as will the Triangle building. I hate those parking lots along Clark. I'm not so thrilled about the pedestrian bridge, but who knows if that will actually happen. Overall, I think this is a pretty good deal for all parties (except maybe the rooftop owners).
|
This post encapsulates the problem with the profit motive IMO.
The Cubs could do a MUCH better job at the renovation game while still reaping millions more in not only revenue but in adding to the valuation of the club.
But hey, if these moves (which do lack a focus unlike the Soldier's Field renovation) are enough to overcome the loss in attendance and revenue from the likes of me and the people I drag to Cub games when I'm in Chicago (which is a lot due to business), all the best to the organization. I'm less sad for the Cubs than I am for the loss of a real, authentic baseball experience for the city of Chicago.