HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #521  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2014, 3:56 AM
Tom Servo's Avatar
Tom Servo Tom Servo is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
Yeah, never trust a Nebraskan. What do you mean by destroy the team? Do you think they'll start having troubles like not being able to end the season above .500? They might even go 100+ years without a pennant if he does enough damage.
Funny. I was thinking more like moving the team out of Chicago. But ^^^ I guess never mind. Idk. We'll see what happens.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #522  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2014, 1:15 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
Yeah, never trust a Nebraskan. What do you mean by destroy the team? Do you think they'll start having troubles like not being able to end the season above .500? They might even go 100+ years without a pennant if he does enough damage.


I was just going to say, how exactly does one 'destroy the Cubs'?
__________________
The only thing better than a V10 is a V12
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #523  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2014, 1:44 PM
Skyguy_7 Skyguy_7 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by markh9 View Post
Looks like the rooftops won. From Blair Kamin on Twitter:

Source: https://twitter.com/BlairKamin/statu...31399025852416
Awesome. This is definitely the better option of two evils.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #524  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2014, 11:30 PM
BorisMolotov's Avatar
BorisMolotov BorisMolotov is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 542
I was listening to Boers and Bernstein (so take it with a grain of salt) but they brought up an interesting point in that the Cubs have inherent disadvantages in the crappy clubhouse, lesser workout facilities, and most importantly, day games. I am a lifelong fan, but at this point, I think that Wrigley Field itself is a large contributing factor into why the Cubs haven't won a World Series in 105 years. Even though I love the charms of Wrigley Field, and nothing compares to the experience of going to a game there, I feel like unless the stadium is either completely basically torn down and rebuilt or the Cubs move to a new stadium, they will never win the World Series.

I love the Cubs, but honestly, I have never been this disinterested in the team and the sport in general as I have been for the last two years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #525  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2014, 3:13 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 15,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by BorisMolotov View Post
the Cubs have inherent disadvantages in the crappy clubhouse, lesser workout facilities, and most importantly, day games...

I feel like unless the stadium is either completely basically torn down and rebuilt or the Cubs move to a new stadium, they will never win the World Series.
Holy non sequitur, Batman! I agree that these are problems, but all these issues are being addressed by Ricketts without tearing down Wrigley.

Is there any reason the Cubs can't upgrade their clubhouse facilities inside of Wrigley? One of the ideas pitched by Ricketts was to build a brand new clubhouse beneath the outfield, which seems like a pretty good idea to me. That frees up space for workout facilities and other amenities for the team too.

There's no good spot for a bullpen, but you can't have everything. Pitchers warming up in left field is a tradition anyway.

Night games will increase this year to 36 with permission to go up to 43. The surrounding blocks are now more commercial than they've ever been, with residents pretty much banished within a 1-block radius of the park. That means fewer people to complain about night games.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #526  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2014, 4:54 AM
untitledreality untitledreality is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by BorisMolotov View Post
I think that Wrigley Field itself is a large contributing factor into why the Cubs haven't won a World Series in 105 years
I wont go through a full break down why the Cubs fan base is absolutely off their rocker with all of the rooftop/rebuild nonsense, but I will comment on this one tidbit.

The Cubs have played half of their games in the same, slowly evolving conditions for 100 seasons (which until the 1960s, those conditions were league average) and have always used those conditions as an excuse, when it should be an advantage. Who should be more accustom to playing day games? The player who does it 80 times a year or the one who plays 20? Afternoon sun in Right Field a total pain in the ass? Good thing you have played in the same conditions before and know what to do. Need to sac fly the runner in from 3rd? check the flags and see whether you need to hit a play ball to center field or left field. In addition to the never ending advantages, you are playing at HOME. Sleep in your own bed, no travel, short commute, family time, rabid fans.

The problem has always been poor ownership, and a lack of sound management.

Luckily one of those problems has been corrected. The Cubs will field very competitive teams in the near future, it is just a matter of how much of our souls as fans we are willing to let be sold to a billionaire from Nebraska.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #527  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2014, 5:09 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 15,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
Sounds like Mr. Servo would like the Cubs to adopt the same ownership model as the Packers...
Every team should adopt this ownership model. Sports team owners are greedy entitled bastards, every one of them.

Almost every issue in professional sports can be traced back to owners that shit on their cities, their players, their fans, and their traditions. They blackmail governments and taxpayers into surrendering billions of dollars for new stadiums, yet keep all the profit from said investment while shouldering none of the risk. If they don't get the billions on demand, they decamp for another city and leave millions of fans in the lurch. They abuse their players and neglect to inform them of the severe health consequences they often face. Etc.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #528  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2014, 4:57 PM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,141
Haven't seen anything anywhere else about that rooftop agreement.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by untitledreality View Post
The problem has always been poor ownership, and a lack of sound management.

Luckily one of those problems has been corrected. The Cubs will field very competitive teams in the near future, it is just a matter of how much of our souls as fans we are willing to let be sold to a billionaire from Nebraska.
Indeed. It seems to many Cubs fans have been duped lately into the excuse making of the Ricketts and Co. As if the reason why the Cubs haven't done what the Red Sox have is because they don't play enough night games or they don't have a blaring jumbo tron bringing in a few extra million dollars per year (a very small drop in the bucket compared to gate receipts and TV deals). A new TV deal in the billions that will be coming in a year and that will allow the Cubs to play big ball with the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox more then some car/beer signage in the outfield could ever come close to. The difference in being competitive depends on this and not stream some kiss cam jumbo tron or even batting cages or more night games (not that I'm personally opposed to either). Now the Cubs have depicted the rooftoppers as the ones who are holding up all the progress of the stadium, neighborhood, and team performance based on some signage and said jumbo tron. It borders on the absurd. The real issue for decades has been the lack of development of farm players, bad scouting and drafting, and at times frugality from the Wrigley's and Tribsters.

I'm all for upgrading the stadium. In fact I think tearing it down from foul to foul pole and building a very modern grandstand is a worthy option to look at. Also development outside the stadium should be welcome but again there the city and ballpark really should demand some better more thoughtful design that is better then a literal mix of Vegas-meets-Disney that Ricketts is offering.

It has never been the grandstands which defines Wrigley (for me) nor is it its best attribute. The outfield sweep though is something extremely unique and dare I say beautiful in regards to sports venues. When I'm watching a game inside Wrigley I feel like I'm not only watching a ball game but taking in Chicago at the same. Why some are so eager to junk it up with a jumbotron and used car signs making the redevelopment of Navy Pier look classy by comparison I'm not sure. Without the outfield vista Wrigley becomes closer to a very run of the mill ballpark losing much of its allure IMO. If done it goes from being a rather typical park with still substandard space and amenities that are still substandard compared to completely new parks. So in fact you get the worst of both worlds with a Ricketts rehab in that it is not completely updated stadium while also losing the uniqueness and "charm" that makes Wrigley Wrigley (the outfield sweep largely). Maybe this seems like an overreaction or over romanticized notion to some non-Cubs fans or even to some Cubs fans who have licked up the Ricketts sob story. However I sincerely think that many would slowly be driven away and take in less games (especially during inevitable hard years) by taking away what I think makes Wrigley special (even if some fans appreciate it only on a subconscious level) which is why I think Ricketts is so short sighted in his plans to deface what is best about Wrigley.

And all this talk about "just leave" the neighborhood by fans is equally idiotic. With a new stadium in Rosemont, Glenview, or Arlington Heights the Cubs are just the Mets, Phillies, or Angles (as opposed to the Yanks, Red Sox, or Dodgers) who have to win 90 games per year in order to draw 3 million and warrant having the 2nd highest ticket prices in baseball. Keeping up the brand (which Wrigley is a MAJOR element of) depends partially on respecting and updating the park the right way which then will warrant them obtaining Yankee/Dodger TV deals and revenues well into the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post

I was just going to say, how exactly does one 'destroy the Cubs'?
By weaking their brand and appeal of which Wrigley is a MAJOR part). The strength of their brand translates into dollars by way of TV deals, gate receipts, and merchandise sales. That brand has made the Cubs one of the biggest national fan bases (arguably largest outside the Yankees) in the country. A brand and a charismatic stadium that has allowed the Cubs to charge the 2nd highest ticket prices in MLB even during very lean years even during the putrid last five.

The Sox for instance have less brand appeal then the Cubs. This is an inherent disadvantage that translates into loss of revenue which means less dollars to throw at players and compete. If you care about the Cubs then you care about them not making stupid short sighted moves that will lessen their brand appeal. Defacing Wrigley so that it loses its uniqueness and "charm" is one certain way to bring down that brand appeal. If you are the owners or fan who cares deeply about the long standing health of the team then dumbing down the brand should be the last thing you want to do because ultimately it means less money to compete.

Last edited by nomarandlee; Jan 25, 2014 at 6:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #529  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2014, 6:12 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by BorisMolotov View Post
I was listening to Boers and Bernstein (so take it with a grain of salt) but they brought up an interesting point in that the Cubs have inherent disadvantages in the crappy clubhouse, lesser workout facilities, and most importantly, day games. I am a lifelong fan, but at this point, I think that Wrigley Field itself is a large contributing factor into why the Cubs haven't won a World Series in 105 years. Even though I love the charms of Wrigley Field, and nothing compares to the experience of going to a game there, I feel like unless the stadium is either completely basically torn down and rebuilt or
This is the most ridiculous nonsense Ive ever heard spouted. These are grown adult men, operating at the pinnacle of human fitness (well OK, debatable), being paid untold millions of dollars to play a child's game for a living. And Im supposed to feel sympathy because, "Oh the clubhouse is a little cramped."

cry. me. a. river. There are players that played in legit dumps 50 years ago and still hold records.

Last edited by Via Chicago; Jan 25, 2014 at 6:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #530  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2014, 6:26 PM
Tom Servo's Avatar
Tom Servo Tom Servo is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,647
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee View Post
...
Nicely put.

The only thing I don't agree with is the idea of replacing the grandstand with something new and modern. If they need to replace it with the exact same thing, that's fine. But in no way would I be okay with any kind of 'upgrade' to the grandstand. And really, that's one of my major issues with this entire thing: the notion that the stadium is flawed or lacking in some way. Look, I realize the grandstand itself is falling apart. Replace that with new materials? Fine. But keep it EXACTLY the same.

What really gets me angry is hearing people talk about how the concourse needs 'upgrading'. It doesn't. It's Wrigley. It's not whatever ballpark your (Mr. Transplanted-to-Chicago-for-work-after-college-and-thinks-he-has-the-right-to-weigh-in-on-this-issue-because-he-gets-tickets-from-his-job-and-calls-himself-a-Cubs-fan) out-of-town ass grew up going to. It's old; it's run down; we pee in troughs; but it's where and how we've played baseball on the Northside of Chicago for 100 years now, and it's beautiful. I, personally, don't want anything about it to change. It's bad enough they messed with the bleachers. And aside from taking the grandstand down and replacing it with exact same thing just in new materials, I am opposed to changes... esspecially in the name of 'upgrading', which is a fucking farce.

Last edited by Tom Servo; Jan 25, 2014 at 6:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #531  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2014, 6:47 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 15,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
This is the most ridiculous nonsense Ive ever heard spouted. These are grown adult men, operating at the pinnacle of human fitness (well OK, debatable), being paid untold millions of dollars to play a child's game for a living. And Im supposed to feel sympathy because, "Oh the clubhouse is a little cramped."

cry. me. a. river. There are players that played in legit dumps 50 years ago and still hold records.
Regardless of your disdain for players' attitude, it is definitely a factor when they are considering several offers from teams.

The Cubs are already at a huge disadvantage because players don't really see it as a place for championships. The poor player facilities just make it worse.

Really the only thing we can compete on is money (obviously) and history/tradition, but the Yankees, Red Sox, etc have that AND a winning record AND more money.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #532  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2014, 7:57 PM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
Nicely put.

The only thing I don't agree with is the idea of replacing the grandstand with something new and modern. If they need to replace it with the exact same thing, that's fine. But in no way would I be okay with any kind of 'upgrade' to the grandstand. And really, that's one of my major issues with this entire thing: the notion that the stadium is flawed or lacking in some way. Look, I realize the grandstand itself is falling apart. Replace that with new materials? Fine. But keep it EXACTLY the same.

What really gets me angry is hearing people talk about how the concourse needs 'upgrading'. It doesn't. It's Wrigley. It's not whatever ballpark your (Mr. Transplanted-to-Chicago-for-work-after-college-and-thinks-he-has-the-right-to-weigh-in-on-this-issue-because-he-gets-tickets-from-his-job-and-calls-himself-a-Cubs-fan) out-of-town ass grew up going to. It's old; it's run down; we pee in troughs; but it's where and how we've played baseball on the Northside of Chicago for 100 years now, and it's beautiful. I, personally, don't want anything about it to change. It's bad enough they messed with the bleachers. And aside from taking the grandstand down and replacing it with exact same thing just in new materials, I am opposed to changes... especially in the name of 'upgrading', which is a fucking farce.
I respect your idea about the grandstand and I would be OK if they only did minimal structure upgrades on it to make it "safe".

Until the last few years I would have myself have been against making any wholesale changes to the grandstand given that I always liked the whole Wrigley package as it was. However over the last few years I have realized that what makes Wrigley special (to me a least) is much more the outfield rather then grandstand or exterior shell. I mean what on the outside are we preserving. The chainlink fencing? The concrete panels lining the side walk? Other then the marquee itself I don't see much on the outside that needs to be over nostalgic about. And in the grandstand though I do like the configuration of the seats I do think the obstructed views of the I-beams and the overhanging skyboxes is quasi-unacceptable. Also a new single line of skyboxes could be put up of the second deck in a new grandstand. These are real changes and concerns I think that most of the fans would really appreciate but which aren't in the plans to get done. To me making a ballpark "modern" doesn't equate with blasting oversized TV's and advertising signs as it does the Ricketts and some fans. I think a new modern grandstand (think Target Field or some of the new European soccer stadiums) could provide great inspiration for a contrasting grandstand and a historical outfield. That is just my ideal. Of course keep the troughs.

I am also very skeptical of owners and their architects who do "retro" parks be they new or restored. Frankly I think its been overdone and the results are not all that impressive in many cases. No doubt one just needs to look at the neo-traditional schlock the Ricketts have planned for their triangle building and hotel as a reason to be fearful of what they would with their ideas of historical interpretation are.

Last edited by nomarandlee; Jan 26, 2014 at 7:32 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #533  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2014, 6:33 AM
richb richb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Northwest Indiana
Posts: 140
What I have never gotten, is why haven't the Cubs over the years bought all the buildings that have (or could have) rooftop seating?

Why don't they just buy them as they come on the open market? They could set up a couple shell companies that would have agents buying them as they come up for sale? Had they started doing that in the 1980's maybe they would now own the majority of them by now.

The seats could then be sold just like they are inside the stadium. The Cubs get more seats without doing anything to the park itself.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #534  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2014, 9:23 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by richb View Post
Had they started doing that in the 1980's maybe they would now own the majority of them by now.

The seats could then be sold just like they are inside the stadium. The Cubs get more seats without doing anything to the park itself.
Because in the 80s it was still basically just a few dozen residents with folding chairs and Weber grills. At the time I dont think anyone could have forseen the big business its since morphed into.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #535  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2014, 9:45 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 15,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee View Post
I mean what on the outside are we preserving. The chainlink fencing? The concrete panels lining the side walk? Other then the marquee itself I don't see much on the outside that needs to be over nostalgic about.
The steel frame is really the only notable thing. It just screams Chicago, since the load-bearing steel frame is a Chicago innovation.

The infill panels have changed so much over the years there's nothing to preserve. The renovation plans will restore it to the 1935 appearance (roughly speaking) but they could put in something totally new and I wouldn't care if the steel was still visible. The open feeling is important, though.


SBNation
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #536  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2014, 4:25 AM
Tom Servo's Avatar
Tom Servo Tom Servo is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,647
Thumbs up

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #537  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2014, 9:50 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
Because in the 80s it was still basically just a few dozen residents with folding chairs and Weber grills. At the time I dont think anyone could have forseen the big business its since morphed into.

and heres a perfect example


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BdgsL8kCQAA7FT2.jpg:large
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #538  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2014, 6:43 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,937
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #539  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2014, 7:03 PM
UPChicago's Avatar
UPChicago UPChicago is offline
Vote for me for Mayor!
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by r18tdi View Post
Would they move to Rosemont already......
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #540  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2014, 7:10 PM
Vlajos Vlajos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by UPChicago View Post
Would they move to Rosemont already......
WTH is that?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:51 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.