CHICAGO | Wrigley Field Redevelopment News

[Swicago Swi Sox]

If we are talking "Forced Old-ness" then the clock tower is the funniest part for me.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Well, looks like my fears were confirmed. 80% of this proposal is backwards garbage. Ironically, the hideous Captain Morgan's club we have today will be replaced by the most attractive (and only attractive) element of the plan.

The new Captain Morgan's Club meshes well with the old structure by drawing out the same repetitive I-beam pattern that makes Wrigley so distinctive in the first place. Why couldn't they have applied that same "Modern" theme to the rest of the structures so they respect the structural expression of the ballpark. This "forced oldness" is pathetic and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what the original design of Wrigley actually is. The original Wrigley did not have neo-classical bullshit clocks on it, it was a raw, steel, structure that had all but minimal ornament. Wrigley Field is more akin to 860-880 LSD than it is to the Wrigley Building. Let's not try to force a faux-historical design on this site...

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Well, looks like my fears were confirmed. 80% of this proposal is backwards garbage. Ironically, the hideous Captain Morgan's club we have today will be replaced by the most attractive (and only attractive) element of the plan.

The new Captain Morgan's Club meshes well with the old structure by drawing out the same repetitive I-beam pattern that makes Wrigley so distinctive in the first place. Why couldn't they have applied that same "Modern" theme to the rest of the structures so they respect the structural expression of the ballpark. This "forced oldness" is pathetic and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what the original design of Wrigley actually is. The original Wrigley did not have neo-classical bullshit clocks on it, it was a raw, steel, structure that had all but minimal ornament. Wrigley Field is more akin to 860-880 LSD than it is to the Wrigley Building. Let's not try to force a faux-historical design on this site...

No argument there. Faux historic here just makes a mockery of the original structures...

[SamInTheLoop]

The only thing I really like at all is the small triangular building with the team store.....that's actually pretty nice - minus the ugly top with all the signage, of course. Otherwise, this is all very junky bad (is there any other variety?) faux-historical schlockery. I can't say that I expected any better or different, however. Is it HOK on all of this? No matter who is doing the dirty design work here, the Ricketts might as well have hired Antunovich for the job. I don't think even he would have done worse, and I'm guessing they could save some money in the process.

Let's hope we see some major positive revisions in the next couple months, as the first stab here is a big fat fail.

[ehilton44]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

The new Captain Morgan's Club meshes well with the old structure by drawing out the same repetitive I-beam pattern that makes Wrigley so distinctive in the first place. Why couldn't they have applied that same "Modern" theme to the rest of the structures so they respect the structural expression of the ballpark. This "forced oldness" is pathetic and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what the original design of Wrigley actually is. The original Wrigley did not have neo-classical bullshit clocks on it, it was a raw, steel, structure that had all but minimal ornament. Wrigley Field is more akin to 860-880 LSD than it is to the Wrigley Building. Let's not try to force a faux-historical design on this site...

The only renderings of the park itself are the Sheffield/Addison addition and the jumbotrons/outfield signage. As far as we know, they are changing very little to the park itself. One of the big things I'm hoping for is replacing the chainlink fence along the ramps with wrought iron.

But my main point, is what makes these "forced oldness" other than their use of brick (clocktower aside)? It is definitely bland, but using brick fits in pretty well with the neighborhood. Look at the store fronts up and down Clark. The current Cubs office north of Waveland on Clark is a converted brick building. It may be a little boring, especially the hotel, but I don't think it requires this horrified outcry you are giving it.

[Tom Servo]

I hate the "Wrigley Field" in right and on top of the jumbo-tron. Also, the jumbo-tron looks like shit and detracts from the scoreboard! I was fearing the worst and well... this looks about right. seriously, why they're at it, why not get rid of the ivy wall and replace it with a modern upgrade... sheesh, wtf?! let the destruction of wrigley commence...




just, silly and unnecessary... we don't need FIVE (by my count) signs that say "Wrigley Field"



what am I looking at here? i have no idea what this is a rendering of...



to be honest, this is actually awesome. HUGE improvement!


again, where is this?

is there anyway we fans can organize a protest of this destruction of our ballpark??? or are we all gonna sit back and let them ruin the place?

[LouisVanDerWright]

^^^ You are looking West across Clark at the new hotel where the McDonalds and junk stores are now.

Originally Posted by ehilton44

The only renderings of the park itself are the Sheffield/Addison addition and the jumbotrons/outfield signage. As far as we know, they are changing very little to the park itself. One of the big things I'm hoping for is replacing the chainlink fence along the ramps with wrought iron.

But my main point, is what makes these "forced oldness" other than their use of brick (clocktower aside)? It is definitely bland, but using brick fits in pretty well with the neighborhood. Look at the store fronts up and down Clark. The current Cubs office north of Waveland on Clark is a converted brick building. It may be a little boring, especially the hotel, but I don't think it requires this horrified outcry you are giving it.

Well the massing, the pitched roof on the hotel, the clocktower, the gross brick plaza (couldn't they use something classy like black granite that will hide the bro-grime???), the stupid little octagon building on the plaza, the arches over the windows, the faux "ye olde irone werke" on the bridge, etc. The whole thing is, as you said, bland, and not only attempts to ape an older style, but does it in the most cartoonish manner possible.

It would be a much much better project if they just replicated the style of the new Captain Morgan's Club on all the buildings. Something like that DePaul Dorm with the I-beams on Fullerton. The modern iron would actually complement the stadium, rather than detract from it as the trashy crap in the renders above does.

[ardecila]

Jumbotron: I hate the concept altogether, but the size and placement are about the best I could hope for.

Captain Morgan Club: perfect.

Everything else: utter shit.


To complete the ye olde ballpark paradigm, I am willing to bet $50 that the Cubs will set up a BBQ establishment on the plaza named after a Cubs legend. Santo's Smokehouse, anyone?

[Tom Servo]

ooooh okay, so this is clark... gotcha, the street is drawn a little narrow, so that threw me off.

okay, well, WHY a bridge?! haha, this is literally on of the strongest pedestrian zones in the city. scrap the bridge! other than that, this, along with the south east corner upgrade is welcome change IMO
i really like the clocktower building on the corner. and that plaza is really nice too... i just really hope brick is maintained as a paver and not some silly design that is drawn here.

[pyropius]

Ricketts threatens to move Cubs without OK for Wrigley upgrades

By Ameet Sachdev, Hal Dardick and Bill Ruthhart
Tribune reporters
5:35 p.m. CDT, May 1, 2013

The lengthy and complicated negotiations over the future of Wrigley Field took an unexpected turn Wednesday when Cubs Chairman Tom Ricketts for the first time raised the specter of leaving the venerable ballpark if his demand for more stadium signage, including a giant video scoreboard, doesn't receive government approval.

Ricketts dropped the bombshell after a speech at a breakfast meeting of the City Club of Chicago to rally support for the team's plans to renovate Wrigley Field.

Asked what would happen if opponents block his request for more signs in the outfield, Ricketts said: "I'm not sure how anyone is going to stop the signs in the outfield, but if it comes to the point that we don't have the ability to do what we need to do in our outfield then we're going to have to consider moving. It's a simple as that."

And of course, the suburbanites in the comments are all for the move to Rosemont.

[Tom Servo]

http://espn.go.com/chicago/photos/ga...ld-renovations

http://espn.go.com/chicago/photos/ga...ld-renovations

http://espn.go.com/chicago/photos/ga...ld-renovations

I like the two new buildings! Huge improvement... my number one fear though is how they finish the plaza. They must maintain the brick, keep planters and obstructions to a minimum, and scrap that stupid bridge!

but yeah, that jumbo-tron and the excessive "Wrigley Fields" are just abhorrent!

[alex1]

Originally Posted by pyropius

Ricketts threatens to move Cubs without OK for Wrigley upgrades

By Ameet Sachdev, Hal Dardick and Bill Ruthhart
Tribune reporters
5:35 p.m. CDT, May 1, 2013



And of course, the suburbanites in the comments are all for the move to Rosemont.

Could you imagine a move to Rosemont? It'll make some of the worst car traffic in the region even worse. I'm surprised suburbanites would actually be for such a move. Myopia?

Anyhow, I'm sure Mike Royko is rolling in his grave today. Too bad he's no longer around to inject some old-school Chicago into this debate.

[J_M_Tungsten]

I hope they do move. All the bitching from the rooftop owners and "fans" about these proposed plans would piss me off to the point to say "screw'm". The rooftop owners affected by the jumbotron are minimal, if any, as it is placed in the line of sight where the United sign on the roof of the building behind the stadium sits. The team and stadium are like any other business. Yes, they do need to appeal to the fans and supporters, but the OWNERS of the team still need to run their business in the manner they deem fit. The changes to the neighborhood are necessary. Shitty old buildings and parking lots currently plague the area. These designs are not awful. Are they masterpieces? Absolutely not. They simply show what can be done to dramatically enhance the neighborhood and stadium. I hope Ricketts takes the 638 million in revenue that the Cubs make that neighborhood and move to Rosemont out of spite. How are those rooftop views of an empty stadium?

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Well, looks like my fears were confirmed. 80% of this proposal is backwards garbage. Ironically, the hideous Captain Morgan's club we have today will be replaced by the most attractive (and only attractive) element of the plan.

The new Captain Morgan's Club meshes well with the old structure by drawing out the same repetitive I-beam pattern that makes Wrigley so distinctive in the first place. Why couldn't they have applied that same "Modern" theme to the rest of the structures so they respect the structural expression of the ballpark. This "forced oldness" is pathetic and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what the original design of Wrigley actually is. The original Wrigley did not have neo-classical bullshit clocks on it, it was a raw, steel, structure that had all but minimal ornament. Wrigley Field is more akin to 860-880 LSD than it is to the Wrigley Building. Let's not try to force a faux-historical design on this site...

Sadly, I have to agree with all of this. VOA has done a miserable job (so far) and it is clear they have not put up much of a fight against the wishes of their client. Part of operating an architecture firm is being capable of talking reason into a client, no matter where the conversation starts. Someone, somewhere in the office should have been shouting "WRIGLEY IS, AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN, MODERN!"

Im going to break this down. The good, the bad, and the ugly.



The Good

1. The Captain Morgan Club. Aside from the upper signage, this is perfect. It complements the design language of Wrigley without attempting to carbon copy it. This is the way you do historic renovations/additions. What has been an eyesore for the last few years will be a beautiful addition to Addison/Sheffield.

2. The Left Field digital billboard. A mirror image of the right field signage, which last year proved to be a subtle, classy addition to the outfield sweep. The balance should be pleasing to the eyes and neither really disrupt interior views.

3. The Center Field digital ribbon. Honestly, I barely even notice this one while paging through renderings. Replacing the POS sign that hangs off the scoreboard with a narrow, integrated sign akin to the RF/LF billboards will be in keeping with the subtle design changes.

4. Built Density. The size, siting and use mix of the buildings along Clark is a good omen. Design can always be altered, but it is usually harder to change basic principles and premises of size, siting and use.



The Bad

1. The Jumbotron. I hate the idea of a Jumbotron in Wrigley. Hate it with everything in my being...makes a die hard Cubs fan just seeth in anger. However, its inevitable, so lets do it right. With that said, its not that far off, the proportions are just shot. Ditch the lights and upper ironwork and it becomes much more horizontal, with less visual clutter. It just needs some simplification and Im sold (kind of)

2. The Plaza. Good idea, poor execution. Someone needs to do some research into what makes a great plaza. One that holds peoples attention, one that people want to congregate in regardless of surrounding events. A blank sweep of stamped concrete is not that.



The Ugly

1. Everything Else on Clark Street. The Disneyland design of the Hotel complex, the frivolous use of wrought iron and archways, the sloppy setbacks, EVERY CORNER CONDITION, the clock tower, the use of faux historic materials, THE BALCONIES!!! WHY THE BALCONIES???!!!, the skybridge, the pitched roofs, the perpendicular parapets, the obelisks (Lakeview has enough damn obelisks)

2. The static billboard in Right Field. In my opinion, this sign, more than the Jumbotron detracts from the sweep of the bleachers. Its just an ugly turd sitting at the end of the sweep, killing the terminus.




Someone at VOA needs to grow a pair, and if that won't happen someone needs to whisper names like Gang, Kearns, Ronan, Train, Wimer into Rickett's ear. Firms that not only have the ability to create stunning works of Architecture, but ones with strong personalities who could persuade Cubs brass and neighborhood groups into higher quality design.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

I hope they do move. All the bitching from the rooftop owners and "fans" about these proposed plans would piss me off to the point to say "screw'm". The rooftop owners affected by the jumbotron are minimal, if any, as it is placed in the line of sight where the United sign on the roof of the building behind the stadium sits. The team and stadium are like any other business. Yes, they do need to appeal to the fans and supporters, but the OWNERS of the team still need to run their business in the manner they deem fit. The changes to the neighborhood are necessary. Shitty old buildings and parking lots currently plague the area. These designs are not awful. Are they masterpieces? Absolutely not. They simply show what can be done to dramatically enhance the neighborhood and stadium. I hope Ricketts takes the 638 million in revenue that the Cubs make that neighborhood and move to Rosemont out of spite. How are those rooftop views of an empty stadium?

The notion that its even remotely possible they would move is ludicrous. The Wrigley "experience" is 90% of the draw of the Cubs gameday and he knows it and everyone else knows it. Not to mention the overwhelming national ill will such a move would generate...which again, he is well aware. I certainitly doubt he wants to be the one tarred and feathered on the global stage by uprooting one of the most beloved American teams. Its a feeble, blatantly transparent bargaining effort and nothing more. The fact that he phrased it as an option they would be forced to "consider" in such a situation exposes the threat for what it is: empty. Sure, go to Rosement. Im sure the local Hooters and Applebees are lobbying hard.

Anyway its a moot point because the city will kowtow as they always do and let them get their way. But the notion that this is a "dramatic enhancement" to the neighborhood is pretty insulting to anyone who cares about the built environment in this city. "Shitty old buildings"? Well, might as well bulldoze 85% of Chicago while you're at it if this is your definition of "shitty". Or are we no longer proud of our heritage? The buildings being demolished are perfectly serviceable and in better shape than most any. I'd much rather have the gritty rough and tumble days of the 80's back than this frat boy Disney schlock.

Im honestly surprised how worked up Im getting about this considering Wrigleyville (save the Gingerman) is my personal vision of hell, but whenever i see shit like this getting thrown up when so much better could be done given the astronomical budget and political influence, its again...insulting.

[J_M_Tungsten]

Placing a revenue generating digital jumbotron that doesn't interfere with any of the rooftop views is going against the signed contract? Also, the team is what has the support of the fans. Sure,Wrigley is a major draw, but at the end of the day, it's a 100 year old building and park that the Cubs never won in. The fact that Ricketts wants to invest anything in this team and park should be considered a blessing for any Cubs fan.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

Placing a revenue generating digital jumbotron that doesn't interfere with any of the rooftop views is going against the signed contract?

Does it not interfer? I see how one could claim it won't.

Sure,Wrigley is a major draw, but at the end of the day, it's a 100 year old building and park that the Cubs never won in.

I think you just proved my point. The fact that they still attract such crowds despite their futility (and virtually built an entire brand upon that) demonstrates the value of a historic urban park, of which no other kind remains in existence. A venue with an absence of flashing lights and advertising in our modern culture is increasingly rare and holds a premium value of its own. And anyone who needs to watch a game on a giant screen while being present AT the game I would argue is missing the point. But I realize Im in the minority and that we've basically bred a generation of people who have no idea how to enjoy anything without the presence of a glowing screen validating the experience (and this is coming from a 28 year old).

[J_M_Tungsten]

Actually, it's been steadily declining since 2008 (a decent regular season) http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/cubsatte.shtml. Averages this year are about 31,000 a game (10,000 less than capacity, and it shows on tv). I think that goes to show a winning team is the big draw, not the stadium. It will always draw tourist in due to its history (Hell, Babe Ruth called his shot here back in 1932), but something's gotta give to stay relevant to the modern world. Again, I'm not saying this is the greatest project ever conceived, but it does give the neighborhood some advancement in maintaining its appeal.

[SamInTheLoop]

Untitledreality nails the analysis of the architecture, and Via Chicago the obviousness of Ricketts' 'bluff'. Both are spot-on.

Didn't Ricketts meet his wife, or propose to her or something at Wrigley? For this and other reasons, the Cubs are not going to be moving from Wrigley. All parties in the negotiations know this, and any such 'threat' is just for the cameras or whatever. There's absolutely no leverage here, folks.

[J_M_Tungsten]

Lol, yea, sentimental value would be his reason for not leaving; o, and other reasons of course..