CHICAGO | Wrigley Field Redevelopment News

[MercurySky]

Why mess with it? The lack of success on the field has nothing to do with the park but more with the ownership and decades of bad luck.

[ChiHi]

Agreed. I don't believe anyone in their celebration speech after winning the World Series has ever said that it couldn't have been done without their stadium. The Cubs with a new stadium are no more likely to win a championship that the Marlins with their new stadium, the Twins with theirs or even the Brewers. I'm up for making improvements to the stadium but drop the line of this will help the Cubs win a championship. It'll bring in more money, yes. But money has definitely never been the Cubs weak point. Talent on the field and in the front office has.

[ardecila]

The Cubs need a decent clubhouse and facilities to attract talent. The team's infamous reputation means that big name stars like Carl Crawford or Prince Fielder will think twice before coming to the Cubs, especially if they're looking for a championship. That means the Cubs need every other advantage when it comes to recruitment - the money's already there but the team needs to upgrade the facilities in the clubhouse and the office. Wrigley also needs some major investment, or have you forgotten the falling concrete a few years back? All the stuff with the fan experience and lounges and plazas and streetscapes and stuff is purely optional, though.

[Neuman]

By Cheryl Kent Special to the Tribune

5:26 p.m. CDT, June 5, 2013
Wrigley Field had it right from the start. An urban ballpark close to public transportation and holding around 40,000 people is the winning ticket. Wrigley may be battered but, as it approaches its centenary, it is still authentic.

So, with this real treasure, it is strange to see plans from the Cubs that would undermine Wrigley's best, enduring qualities by cocooning it in a suburban design and by fudging the line between what's real and what's not.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/entert...083,full.story

[SamInTheLoop]

^ overall a phenomenally good critique......a couple minor quibbles (and strangely Kent didn't actually name the designers, I just realized), but that's it.......if she keeps this up one might hear faint whispers of "Blair who?"

[thewaterman11]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^ overall a phenomenally good critique......a couple minor quibbles (and strangely Kent didn't actually name the designers, I just realized), but that's it.......if she keeps this up one might hear faint whispers of "Blair who?"

If only Cityscapes was more often updated...

[bnk]

Greg Hinz On Politics


Tunney demands big changes in Wrigley 'framework'
June 26, 2013

31 comments



Chicago Ald. Tom Tunney, 44th, has thrown a big last-minute wrench into negotiations over the Cubs' $500 million proposal to revamp Wrigley Field, saying he cannot support it without major changes.


In a letter to Chicago Cubs Executive Vice President Michael Lufrano (below), Mr. Tunney demanded a sharp reduction in proposed signage in the ballpark and other shifts, including the removal of a proposed pedestrian bridge over Clark Street between the stadium and a hotel the team plans to build to the west.


The letter was sent in advance of a meeting scheduled tomorrow morning, at which the Commission on Chicago Landmarks is scheduled to consider the proposal.


The letter was obtained from a source close to the proposed development.


"I am very pleased that we have been able to condense a very lengthy list of community concerns down to a handful of items," Mr. Tunney wrote. But, "as I have consistently represented, only until the following changes are made will I support the Cubs' application" before the landmarks group and the Chicago Plan Commission.


Specifically, to get his support, Mr. Tunney said the plan must be amended to reduce the size of a left-field Jumbotron, from 6,000 square feet to 3,500 square feet. Also similarly pared must be the right-field advertising sign, from 1,000 square feet to 600 square feet.


The North Side alderman also said the pedestrian bridge must go. Also out: a patio/outdoor deck bridging Patterson Street. And the hotel's lobby must be moved from Patterson to either the Addison Street or Clark Street side, he said.


Mr. Tunney also complained that the proposal — ....

Best translation of that: The ball now is in the hands of Mr. Emanuel....



Letter


Read more: http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...#ixzz2XS9BPeVv

[MegaBass]

Landmark Commission OKs Some of the Renovation

As expected, on June 27th, the Chicago Landmarks Commission approved portions of the Chicago Cubs’ planned renovation of Wrigley Field. Which portions, you ask? Well, the non-controversial aspects.

Which is to say that the Commission did not decide yet on the proposed video board in left field or the advertising sign in right field. The Cubs have sought a 6000 square foot JumboTron in left field and a 1000 square foot advertising sign in right field. As part of the framework agreement between the Cubs, Alderman Tom Tunney and the Mayor, everyone agrees that the Cubs will get signs. The question is whether they’ll get them as big as they want them. The Landmarks Commission will reconvene on July 11th at their regularly-scheduled meeting to pass upon the signs. That’s going to be a very important meeting.

Although the Cubs today received approval on a large portion of the planned renovations – more about that in a moment – it may be moot without the outfield signage they want, which is to be erected, in part, to pay for the renovation, itself. In other words, it doesn’t do the Cubs much good to bump out the outfield walls to accommodate the outfield signage if there is no outfield signage to be had in the first place.

That’s why you should mark your calendar for July 11. That’s going to be a very important date in this process. Hopefully we’ll have heard of an agreed solution by then.

As for what the Landmarks Commission did approve today, it’s everything else in the renovation that touches upon the landmarked aspects of the ballpark. So, today’s approval included the outfield walls being bumped out (something Tunney today opposed despite previously expressing no concerns publicly), the dugouts and player facilities being renovated, additional signage within the ballpark, a two-story Captain Morgan Club attached to the park, and a new entrance on the west side of the park. Aspects of the renovation plan that were entirely outside of Wrigley – the hotel, the plaza, etc. – are not under the purview of the Landmarks Commission and were not considered today.

If you’re looking for the sum-up, here it is: today went well, which was how it was expected to go. It was an important step in the process, but, because the outfield signage had been excised from consideration, it was not expected to be a difficult step.

Night game ordinance? Flawed, but check.

In-stadium renovations? Partial check.

That’s where things stand so far. The next step is that July 11th meeting. From there, City Council will need to pass upon certain other aspects of the renovation, but, depending on how the July 11th meeting goes, that piece might be perfunctory by the time there’s a vote.

[MegaBass]

Chicago Cubs get approval for smaller jumbotron, right-field sign

The Commission on Chicago Landmarks today approved the most controversial piece of the Chicago Cubs' Wrigley Field renovation plan, ruling that the team may erect a roughly 5,700-square-foot sign in left field featuring a 4,560-square-foot video screen and a 650-square-foot advertising sign in right field.
Those sizes are smaller than the ones outlined in the April framework agreement between the team and the city, but bigger than what Ald. Tom Tunney, 44th, and Lakeview residents pushed for. They said the size of the signs would create quality-of-life issues.
With a unanimous vote this evening after a five-and-a-half-hour meeting that included lots of public testimony, landmarks commissioners decided that the outfield signs would "not adversely affect the significant historical and architectural features of the landmark."
The approval clears another major hurdle in the team's $500 million Wrigley Field renovation and effort to reshape the area in and around the ballpark in the coming years. Approval from the Chicago Plan Commission and full City Council is still pending.
'STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION'
"This is a great step in the right direction" Cubs spokesman Julian Green said. "Today's vote puts us on the right track to make sure that we can move forward with this restoration of the ballpark."
The Wrigley Field Landmark Ordinance includes the "generally uninterrupted sweep and contour" of the bleachers — one of five aspects of the 99-year-old ballpark designated as a landmark — but the panel in charge of the city's landmarks agreed with a commission staff analysis explaining that, because there is distance from the bottom of each sign to the top of the bleachers (8 feet for the left-field sign and 10 feet for the right-field sign), the signs are allowed.
The Cubs had originally proposed a 6,000-square-foot sign in left field and a 1,000-square-foot sign in right field. The approved left-field sign includes slightly smaller versions of the LED video screen, a neon script sign on top and two "light standards" above.
In all, the two signs will make up about 30 percent of the 18,530 square feet of new signage that will be introduced in and around the ballpark (though not all will be advertisement), bringing the new total of sign square footage at Wrigley Field to 26,318.
Mr. Tunney had been pushing for drastically smaller outfield signs than those outlined in the April framework agreement between the team and the city, reiterating during the meeting his opposition to the proposed signs.
ALD. TUNNEY TESTIFIES
"Unfortunately, coming to a consensus on both of these signs was problematic," Mr. Tunney said during his testimony. "Although I understand and appreciate the Cubs' need to monetize the proposed improvements and that the plan comes with an enormous price tag, I cannot support a proposal that so dramatically affects the quality of life of my residents."
But for the second time in as many weeks, the landmarks commission overrode his pleas.
After the vote, Mr. Tunney's staff handed out a prepared statement as the alderman quickly left the room.
"I was disappointed that I was unable to testify in full support of the proposed signage at Wrigley Field at today's meeting of the Chicago Commission on Landmarks," Mr. Tunney said in the statement. "Unfortunately, we were unable to fully achieve our objectives in reducing the size of both signs. However, we agreed in the framework, and the mayor has assured me that there is an understanding that contemplates only these two signs for the foreseeable future."
The question still remains as to whether Mr. Tunney will further his opposition to the Cubs' overall plan by rallying support from other aldermen.
ROOFTOP RESPONSE
Approval of the outfield signs now shines the spotlight squarely on the fight between the team and the rooftop owners, who have contracts that prevent the team from putting up barriers to their sight lines.
In a statement, the Wrigleyville Rooftop Association did not address whether it will pursue legal action, but it previously has stated it would take the Cubs to court for breach of contract if signs go up blocking the views.
"The Commission on Chicago Landmarks issued a decision wholly inconsistent with its mission of preserving and protecting historic properties in the city of Chicago by approving dramatic changes that adversely affect specifically protected elements of Wrigley Field," the statement said.
Six owners were among the dozens of people who testified during today's meeting, using visual aids showing their views from rooftops when the Cubs erected "mock-up" signs in May.
In their comments, most focused on the significant debt rooftop owners incurred when they were required to spend millions of dollars to get their buildings up to code when they partnered with the Cubs in 2004.
"They call it a see-through sign. I call it bankruptcy," said Mark Schlenker, owner of Brixen Ivy on Sheffield Avenue.
Rooftop association spokeswoman Beth Murphy, who owns Murphy's Bleachers across the street from the ballpark, said her contingent will continue to fight the signage through upcoming meetings that will consider things like parking and traffic.
"We're disappointed, but we're not surprised," she said. "There are lots of details that have to be worked out for the neighborhood, and that's where we'll go forward."
Asked whether he thinks erecting the signs would "bankrupt" rooftop owners, Cubs spokesman Mr. Green conceded that there would be some impact. "But from our position, we believe that we still have a good partnership moving forward and that there are some viable businesses that can move forward."
NEXT STEPS
Next up in the public process for the Wrigley renovation: The team's full planned development application will go before the Chicago Plan Commission on July 18, before it heads to the city's zoning committee and finally to a full City Council vote.
Still to be hammered out are details of the team's proposed plaza and office building in the triangle property on the stadium's west side, as well as a boutique Sheraton hotel across the street.
Residents have complained that the proposed 91-foot height of the hotel is too high for the neighborhood, and Mr. Tunney is pushing for changes to the orientation of the hotel's lobby and patio deck, as well as the removal of a proposed pedestrian bridge over Clark Street.
Earlier today, the Lakeview Citizens Council sent a letter to Mayor Rahm Emanuel requesting a meeting to discuss concerns about extra traffic that will be created by the hotel and plaza. The Cubs have commissioned a traffic study on that topic, which is expected to be released in time for next week's Chicago Plan Commission meeting.
We'll see if those changes happen. But as my colleague Greg Hinz has reported, Mr. Emanuel has promised final city approval of the entire plan by early August.

[untitledreality]

Well, I know a lot of forum members on here, myself included, were concerned about the pedestrian bridge over Clark (tacky signage and all) and apparently Tunney managed to get a single "win" before the city signed off the on the plans by having it removed (in addition to a new signage moratorium prolonged from 2 years to 10 years).

The pedestrian experience surrounding Wrigley just dodged a major bullet.

[woodrow]

That's fantasic news!! Most of the hotel and office design is meh, the Captain Morgan's has potential to be really nice, but that pedestrian bridge irritated me.

[Mr Downtown]

Approved by City Council today.

[ardecila]

Let the Disneyfication begin.

[george]

The pedestrian bridge over Clark plan will only be stalled for a number of years. Most likely the infrastructure to hold the bridge will be built into the new hotel for future installation. When Alderman (windsock) Tunney leaves office, the bridge plan will resurface, IMO.

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Let the Disneyfication begin.

Indeed. Vegas meets Disney. The worse of both worlds. Welcome to Rickettsville.

Too bad that long term I think they are cutting off the nose despite Wrigley's face and not for all that much gain. Too bad the city bargained so lamely give the amount of leverage I think it really had to see a redevelopment be done right.

.....In new news the Cubs proposed a direct skywalk from the Addison L station into the ballpark.

[MiamiSpartan]

Not a cubs' fan by any stretch, but they have to do something to that park to increase revenue....

[J_M_Tungsten]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Let the Disneyfication begin.

I'm cool with that. The team is a joke so why not make the neighborhood match?

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

I'm cool with that. The team is a joke so why not make the neighborhood match?

Because the neighborhood is more than the ballpark and lots of people live there and things happen there unrelated to the sport. And the entire area shouldnt be held hostage to just 1 private organization.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by MiamiSpartan

Not a cubs' fan by any stretch, but they have to do something to that park to increase revenue....

Spare me
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...n-media-rights

[J_M_Tungsten]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

Because the neighborhood is more than the ballpark and lots of people live there and things happen there unrelated to the sport. And the entire area shouldnt be held hostage to just 1 private organization.

Yes, but if you are a resident of that neighborhood, you know what you got yourself into if you moved there, at least, they should. That isn't only for cubs games either. When the Blackhawks won the cup this year, that area was a clusterf*ck, as well as many nights when college kids are screaming up and down the streets at 3 in the morning. I guess the only people who would be exempt from not knowing the consequences of the neighborhood would be anyone who bought a place prior to 1914. And for the record, I don't see anything in this project as an all out negative. If a new score board and outfield signage is the worst of it, I'd say the fans are pretty lucky someone is willing to dump 500 million into this stadium and team.