Quote:
Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten
I understand your point. Just to play devil's advocate though, would that differ from a neighborhood persons input that demands a reduction in a proposed buildings height or for a project to include more parking? Many times I feel neighborhood residents are selfish with their "ideas" for improvements, and will often neglect what the rest of the city wants or needs for an area.
|
I don't think there is any universal truth to all NIMBYs all the time. Sometimes neighborhoods advocates are on the right side of an issue and sometimes they are just being selfish short sighted twats. SOAR for instance is a group that I think has on the whole done a great deal of good for their enclave and the city. Not giving carte blanche to anything the Ricketts want to do for their little corner of Lake View is akin to being an ungrateful NIMBY. In this case I just regard it as having good taste and sense. If some entity wanted to plaster 50k of ad signage at Navy Pier or the River Walk would it be a selfish NIMBY to dare suggest that it wouldn't be a great idea? Give the importance of Wrigley to the city I don't see how this is much different.
And I can't see how you can not see much wrong with the plans for the park. Have you seen the garish faux-historical town square with LED fixtures in the planned plaza and the Disney clock tower? Its all just so dumbed down and frankly not befitting of one of the biggest tourist attractions the city has to offer. It really does seem to be a mix of Vegas meets Disney on a massive scale.
The jumbotron is more of an issue for the fans then it is for the neighborhood IMO (except the rooftoppers). I guess I've found myself to be in the minority but I find looking out into the urban neighborhood, the lake, and sky above Chicago to be so much endlessly beautiful and intriguing then blaring jumbotrons and kiss cams will be. I've been to other parks (Coors, Miller, Yankee, The Cell) and stadiums and I honestly feel like I'm deprived of nothing by not having one. And I think when you put up used car signs and jumbo trons you will take away a lot of what some people find unique and awesome about Wrigley which is kind of a serene and old time feel. LED's and jumbtrons isn't what makes a stadium modern. I fear that Wrigley will now have the worst negatives of old school stadiums (cramped, obstructed views) while having the worst of the new school stadiums (over commercialized, trite diversions, faux-history etc.) The Ricketts I think are attempting to be both modern while paying lip service to Wrigleys classical nature and in the end will do neither well. As a result the park will suffer more from mediocrity then a great blend of new and old.
Its all such a shame because I really think that the Ricketts in their short sightedness are cutting off Wrigleys nose despite its face. By disregarding and I dare say disrespecting what most makes Wrigley unique to many people they ultimately are killing its attraction and by extension in the long term diminishing their product and brand all for a few extra million per year. Millions that I think they will lose anyway when tourist and the non hardcore fans will stop coming in the lean years because they don't regard Wrigley as that special or unique anymore.
I'm all for modernizing the ballpark but I'm for making REAL substantial upgrades. Unobstructed views. Raising the upper deck. More skyboxes above the upper second level. A new transparent roof (or even solar roof) like in some new European soccer stadiums. A glass curtain ringing the exterior of the park instead of some cheap link fencing or iron. Some ideas with real creative design and architectural panache. Heck, I wouldn't mind a whole foul pole to foul pole tear down (I think keeping the outfield intact would be wise however) with maybe a Target Field (Twins new stadium) modernity with a PNC Park (Pittsburgh) intimacy.
I just see little else here other then missed opportunities at best and defacing schlock at worst.