CHICAGO | Wrigley Field Redevelopment News

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^You seem to be comparing grand civic undertakings (some, like the 9-11 Memorial, national in scope) to a market-responsive private redevelopment project. The program for this project is simple: make a profit for the owners without undue risk or delay. To imply that there's a civic imperative to demand cutting-edge design—or to think there's even a mechanism for doing so—is simply ignorant.

He's also ignoring the "grand civic undertakings" that Chicago has recently been engaged in such as the Millennium Park (which was the previous reigning champion in the "awesome transformative urban park" category before the High Line was completed), The Bloomingdale Trail (I'm sure he'll claim it is a High Line rip off without realizing that it is an entirely different type of project that just happens to have the reuse of an old rail line in common with the high line), the Chicago Riverwalk (something which isn't complete yet, but has the potential to be a completely unique feature incomparable to anything anywhere else on earth), and Chicago's recent park building spree which, despite not being easily discernible as a single project, is massively improving the quality of life in many neighborhoods.

But, I digress, what seems silly to me about his comments is that the vast majority of small to medium sized projects I've seen in NYC (in Brooklyn, Manhattan or otherwise) have been absolute schlock just like the majority of the smaller infill in Chicago has been. Of course that completely changes if you are looking at places like the Meatpacking district, but Wrigleyville is nothing like the Meatpacking district and nowhere near as high end. I would agree it is a legitimate criticism if he were talking about the smaller projects in the Gold Coast or West Loop (which is analogous to Meatpacking) right now, but he's not making that comparison. If he were, I'd totally agree that the projects going up in Meatpacking completely outclass just about everything going up in the West Loop and that Chicago developers need to step up their game over there. The only recent projects in the West Loop that can come close to the sick shit in Meatpacking are the Hellanic Museum, Skybridge (which is an "old" project at this point), and possibly the Fulton Market Cold Storage depending on how that turns out.

I'm hoping the imminent arrival of Soho House on Green St will trigger a wave of more adventurous development over there, but I'll believe that when I see it.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^You seem to be comparing grand civic undertakings (some, like the 9-11 Memorial, national in scope) to a market-responsive private redevelopment project. The program for this project is simple: make a profit for the owners without undue risk or delay. To imply that there's a civic imperative to demand cutting-edge design—or to think there's even a mechanism for doing so—is simply ignorant.

I listed just two civic undertakings out of many. I'm not going to name smaller developments like Chelsea Market or the even smaller developments that dot the landscape from Manhattan to Bed-Stuy. Those of you who have been to NYC and have visited extensive parts of the city know that the place does human scaled developments extremely well. And it's no secret that the mid-range to large scaled projects I did mention are also on the cutting edge of design/urban development.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

He's also ignoring the "grand civic undertakings" that Chicago has recently been engaged in such as the Millennium Park (which was the previous reigning champion in the "awesome transformative urban park" category before the High Line was completed), The Bloomingdale Trail (I'm sure he'll claim it is a High Line rip off without realizing that it is an entirely different type of project that just happens to have the reuse of an old rail line in common with the high line), the Chicago Riverwalk (something which isn't complete yet, but has the potential to be a completely unique feature incomparable to anything anywhere else on earth), and Chicago's recent park building spree which, despite not being easily discernible as a single project, is massively improving the quality of life in many neighborhoods.

But, I digress, what seems silly to me about his comments is that the vast majority of small to medium sized projects I've seen in NYC (in Brooklyn, Manhattan or otherwise) have been absolute schlock just like the majority of the smaller infill in Chicago has been. Of course that completely changes if you are looking at places like the Meatpacking district, but Wrigleyville is nothing like the Meatpacking district and nowhere near as high end. I would agree it is a legitimate criticism if he were talking about the smaller projects in the Gold Coast or West Loop (which is analogous to Meatpacking) right now, but he's not making that comparison. If he were, I'd totally agree that the projects going up in Meatpacking completely outclass just about everything going up in the West Loop and that Chicago developers need to step up their game over there. The only recent projects in the West Loop that can come close to the sick shit in Meatpacking are the Hellanic Museum, Skybridge (which is an "old" project at this point), and possibly the Fulton Market Cold Storage depending on how that turns out.

I'm hoping the imminent arrival of Soho House on Green St will trigger a wave of more adventurous development over there, but I'll believe that when I see it.

Hardly ignoring instead of trying to be concise enough that this thread doesn't go completely off track. The fact is that Millennium Park is a great place in that it brings together some highly successful public art and architecture. The interconnectivity (both in terms of function and formal execution) of it leaves a lot to be desired but it's still a hugely popular place. Having said that, there has been a lot more misses than hits in Chicago: think Maxwell St. and Navy Pier's redevelopment plans. In fact, while NYC pumps out human-scaled/micro-stores, unique one-of-a-kind shops en masse across most boroughs, Chicago is happy to push out blah projects such as Block 37, the Roosevelt Collection and the eventual destruction of Prentice as a sign of "progress". But the city is still "home" to me and it's still the place my wife and I will raise our family. So make as many assumptions on what you think I think the river redevelopment or Bloomingdale Trail is if it makes you feel better.

I'm also not sure why the Meatpacking District is the example you chose to pick for NYC. Maybe its because you only know this city as a tourist? What is true about NYC though is how badly scarred previous decades of architectural mediocrity left huge chunks of Midtown. It's just until recent that the city is undoing all that damage.

So, to steer this back on message, what about the Wrigley Field plans do you like and don't like?

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by alex1

Excuses. Chicago has been able to create amazing work and urban tapestries in the past despite zoning, lot sizes or land value. Chicago is mired in a similar slump that NYC was mired in for decades. NYC happens to be fully realizing its design/architectural potential at long last.

But if you want to stick to this idea that Chicago is handicapped by _________, okay.

haha, nice! i agree wholeheartedly.

chicago is the greatest place in the world. that said, we could learn a lot from certain [other] cities and do a better job of avoiding making mistakes that we later regret.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by alex1

Hardly ignoring instead of trying to be concise enough that this thread doesn't go completely off track.

Ok, but then why did you bring up civic improvement projects when talking about a medium/smallish private development? The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

The interconnectivity (both in terms of function and formal execution) of it leaves a lot to be desired but it's still a hugely popular place.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean considering Millennium Park is more or less completely connected to the city on three sides and has bridges further connecting it on the one side that isn't completely connected and one directly connecting the park to the Art Institute. Short of skybridges directly into the Michigan Ave Streetwall I don't know how you can get much more connected especially considering it is built on top of parking garages and a rail station.

In fact, while NYC pumps out human-scaled/micro-stores, unique one-of-a-kind shops en masse across most boroughs, Chicago is happy to push out blah projects such as Block 37, the Roosevelt Collection and the eventual destruction of Prentice as a sign of "progress".

I know you are supposedly from here, but it sounds to me like you haven't ever been here or have never left downtown. Chicago has "human-scaled/micro-stores, unique one of a kind shops" slathered across the entire North and Northwest sides. Apparently you've never been to Wicker Park, Lincoln Park, Andersonville, Lincoln Square, Roscoe Village, Logan Square or any of the other numerous neighborhoods that are filled to the brim with such stores. These aren't just old "legacy" areas that have always been like that either, Andersonville, for example, has gone from 0-60 in the past few years as what used to be a pretty decent neighborhood retail strip has exploded into a city-wide destination lined with great restaurants, boutiques, and bars. So not only is your implication that Chicago somehow lacks such things incorrect, but the city is actively adding such districts at a pretty impressive pace. It's even starting to spill into areas I thought could never see such things such as Broadway in Edgewater which is a street I thought was doomed to automobile hell for all eternity.

Also, as if NYC hasn't had it's fair share of banal projects and crimes against preservation recently. Just look at all those shitty hotels being slapped up all over the city by that one chintzy developer or the impending destruction of TWBT's American Folk Art Museum. At least we let Prentice stand for nearly 40 years here in Chicago before throwing it in the trash.

I'm also not sure why the Meatpacking District is the example you chose to pick for NYC. Maybe its because you only know this city as a tourist?

I chose Meatpacking because it is the most directly analogous district in NYC to the West Loop here in Chicago. My entire post was on how you keep comparing completely different things and then drawing inaccurate conclusions as a result, so why would I be like "yeah, Wrigleyville is actually more like Midtown" or something equally absurd when my entire point is that Wrigleyville is absolutely nothing like any part of the entire island of Manhattan. You might be able to compare it to Barclays center in Brooklyn, but even then you are comparing a brand new basketball arena surrounded by new development to an ancient ballpark nestled in a neighborhood.

And, for the record, I've been in NYC for over a month already this year and have been working on projects related to Soho House so I've been spending a lot of time in Meatpacking (though I refuse to pay Meatpacking hotel rates, so I've been staying in Brooklyn either at hotels or with my cousins who live there).

So, to steer this back on message, what about the Wrigley Field plans do you like and don't like?

I personally don't really have any major issues with the plans that have been released so far. I have some minor nit picks like thinking the skybridge is probably a bad idea, but the plans have turned out better than I had feared so far. I'm actually impressed that they shot down the idea of that parking garage and frankly can live with everything else if they at least go with a decent design.

My biggest fear is that they are going to release renders showing a neo-classical monstrosity justified by some lame "respecting what is already here" bullshit. Wrigley Field is a modernist building, plain and simple. People might not recognize it, but the ballpark is all "form follows function" and really a piece of structural expressionism to a certain degrees. IF the Ricketts propose some beige garbage it will be an insult to the design of Wrigley, not a complement. I think the addition should be radically modern and complement Wrigley, not ape it. For example, I could see the triangle building being a wedge of highly reflective glass that would produce mirrored images of Wrigley on the side that faces the ballpark. Reflective glass would also keep the space between the new building and the field from feeling cramped or closed in.

[the urban politician]

^ Agree with your entire post. Also, don't forget West Town and Logan Square, which are getting filled to the brim with human-scaled projects. Heck, if anything, most of the forumers here have complained the opposite--ie there are not enough large projects in the neighborhoods.

Alex I enjoy your input but perhaps you have been away from Chicago too long? I mean, from about 2000-2010 tremendous amounts of human-scaled stuff went up all over the city, however dull and schlocky.

[XIII]

I've got to solidly agree with LouisVanDerWright on the human scale argument.

I live in Chicago, but spend around 2 weeks a month in NYC and have for the past 3 years or so. I've spent most of my time in NY in Midtown, Murray Hill, East Village, Chelsea, Meatpacking, Downtown Manhattan, Downtown Brooklyn and Williamsburg.

The big trends I've noticed in NYC as a relative outsider are the Miami-fication of Midtown (building bigger, flashier buildings to try to draw in foreign investment money), the hurried Manhattanization of Brooklyn (density and the end of the small local shop) and the rush to develop rather than preserve.

The biggest complaints I would have as a New Yorker are that a number of the flashy buildings do nothing to build the communities as the units are treated like speculation commodities. There are entire highrise buildings with nearly no occupants which actually reduces the density and vibrancy of the city. In brooklyn, entire blocks are being razed to make way for cheap 8-story schlock and infill. It does add density, but most of what you see looks like bad lego concoctions. In 20 years, it will be a complete eyesore.

In Chicago, I would love to see a little more neighborhood mid-rise infill outside of planned developments. I think the business strips would greatly benefit. However, I would like to see it done FAR more carefully than the gentrifying areas of NYC. I'd also love a few bigger towers to go up, but it won't help the city if we're just selling off speculative units. I'd far prefer a fully leased 8 story wrigley development with 100% occupancy than a 80 story high rise with 50 full time residents.

[PerryPendleton]

Originally Posted by XIII

I've got to solidly agree with LouisVanDerWright on the human scale argument.

I live in Chicago, but spend around 2 weeks a month in NYC and have for the past 3 years or so. I've spent most of my time in NY in Midtown, Murray Hill, East Village, Chelsea, Meatpacking, Downtown Manhattan, Downtown Brooklyn and Williamsburg.

The big trends I've noticed in NYC as a relative outsider are the Miami-fication of Midtown (building bigger, flashier buildings to try to draw in foreign investment money), the hurried Manhattanization of Brooklyn (density and the end of the small local shop) and the rush to develop rather than preserve.

The biggest complaints I would have as a New Yorker are that a number of the flashy buildings do nothing to build the communities as the units are treated like speculation commodities. There are entire highrise buildings with nearly no occupants which actually reduces the density and vibrancy of the city. In brooklyn, entire blocks are being razed to make way for cheap 8-story schlock and infill. It does add density, but most of what you see looks like bad lego concoctions. In 20 years, it will be a complete eyesore.

In Chicago, I would love to see a little more neighborhood mid-rise infill outside of planned developments. I think the business strips would greatly benefit. However, I would like to see it done FAR more carefully than the gentrifying areas of NYC. I'd also love a few bigger towers to go up, but it won't help the city if we're just selling off speculative units. I'd far prefer a fully leased 8 story wrigley development with 100% occupancy than a 80 story high rise with 50 full time residents.

yes yes and yes

[alex1]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Ok, but then why did you bring up civic improvement projects when talking about a medium/smallish private development? The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Context. I would suggest rereading the thread and to the original question/debate at hand.

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean considering Millennium Park is more or less completely connected to the city on three sides and has bridges further connecting it on the one side that isn't completely connected and one directly connecting the park to the Art Institute. Short of skybridges directly into the Michigan Ave Streetwall I don't know how you can get much more connected especially considering it is built on top of parking garages and a rail station.

Connectivity within the park itself. Millennium Park is one of my favorite parks in the entire world but it's programming is a collection of disparate parts that don't flow together and it suffers because of it. In other words, it's no Parc Guell.

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

I know you are supposedly from here, but it sounds to me like you haven't ever been here or have never left downtown. Chicago has "human-scaled/micro-stores, unique one of a kind shops" slathered across the entire North and Northwest sides. Apparently you've never been to Wicker Park, Lincoln Park, Andersonville, Lincoln Square, Roscoe Village, Logan Square or any of the other numerous neighborhoods that are filled to the brim with such stores. These aren't just old "legacy" areas that have always been like that either, Andersonville, for example, has gone from 0-60 in the past few years as what used to be a pretty decent neighborhood retail strip has exploded into a city-wide destination lined with great restaurants, boutiques, and bars. So not only is your implication that Chicago somehow lacks such things incorrect, but the city is actively adding such districts at a pretty impressive pace. It's even starting to spill into areas I thought could never see such things such as Broadway in Edgewater which is a street I thought was doomed to automobile hell for all eternity.

Heh. Yeah, I've "apparently never been to ______". Give me a break. I lived in both the Southport Corridor and in West Town. I used to think the stores you're referring to on streets such as Division, Damen and Lincoln were the equivalence to what you find in Fort Green, the Village, Boerum Hill, SoHo and other places but they're not. Not so much.

Also, as if NYC hasn't had it's fair share of banal projects and crimes against preservation recently. Just look at all those shitty hotels being slapped up all over the city by that one chintzy developer or the impending destruction of TWBT's American Folk Art Museum. At least we let Prentice stand for nearly 40 years here in Chicago before throwing it in the trash.

Fair point, but comparing Prentice with a beautifully designed building built in the 2000's is...misplaced. Don't get me wrong, I side with those who want to preserve this structure because it's 1) a very strong piece of design 2) it's new and 3) it's fucking new, can we at least pretend to be stewards of the environment?

I chose Meatpacking because it is the most directly analogous district in NYC to the West Loop here in Chicago. My entire post was on how you keep comparing completely different things and then drawing inaccurate conclusions as a result, so why would I be like "yeah, Wrigleyville is actually more like Midtown" or something equally absurd when my entire point is that Wrigleyville is absolutely nothing like any part of the entire island of Manhattan. You might be able to compare it to Barclays center in Brooklyn, but even then you are comparing a brand new basketball arena surrounded by new development to an ancient ballpark nestled in a neighborhood.

I think you fail to see that there wasn't just one angle being compared. BTW, Barclays center is somewhat nested within a very historical neighborhood. That's not to say they didn't gut swaths around the current arena in the past in the name of "progress". Besides, I'm not comparing neighborhoods. Maybe that's the hang-up?

And, for the record, I've been in NYC for over a month already this year and have been working on projects related to Soho House so I've been spending a lot of time in Meatpacking (though I refuse to pay Meatpacking hotel rates, so I've been staying in Brooklyn either at hotels or with my cousins who live there).

Time for you to spend more time here, then. It took me well over a year to understand the breadth and unique characteristics of the city. I much prefer Chicago to NYC, but there are things about this city that I will miss when I move back.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Agree with your entire post. Also, don't forget West Town and Logan Square, which are getting filled to the brim with human-scaled projects. Heck, if anything, most of the forumers here have complained the opposite--ie there are not enough large projects in the neighborhoods.

Alex I enjoy your input but perhaps you have been away from Chicago too long? I mean, from about 2000-2010 tremendous amounts of human-scaled stuff went up all over the city, however dull and schlocky.

My "real job" is in Chicago, so I am there a lot.

edit: also, there's nothing wrong with implementing larger scaled projects within the neighborhoods. Kudos to the intersection of Ashland and Division for "up"zoning the development there.

[markh9]

Official renderings, according to Crain's. Article here

[Skyguy_7]

^ Not too bad. Love the triangle's open plaza

[ehilton44]

Wow. Some of the jumbotron renderings did have me nervous, but if there was going to be a jumbotron, I think they did it as tastefully as possible.

I like the Triangle Building and Plaza, although the pedestrian bridge is worse than I had imagined. I'm still trying to decide how I feel about the expansion of the "Captain Morgan Club." I think it comes up too close to the corner of Sheffield/Addison.

[Steely Dan]

i can't stand the cursive "wrigley field" signs inside the park. we're cubs fans, we know the fucking name of the place.


at least the cubs are beating the cardinals 8-2 in the renderings.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by ehilton44

Wow. Some of the jumbotron renderings did have me nervous, but if there was going to be a jumbotron, I think they did it as tastefully as possible.

I like the Triangle Building and Plaza, although the pedestrian bridge is worse than I had imagined. I'm still trying to decide how I feel about the expansion of the "Captain Morgan Club." I think it comes up too close to the corner of Sheffield/Addison.

On the plus side the current Captain Morgan Club is a hideous beige pimple sticking out from the building. I can live with this replacing it...perhaps shrunk back from the sidewalks a little more.

I do hope that the design of the hotel and triangle building isn't final. Ugh.

The intent of the pedestrian bridge is clearly to make those extra retail levels in the hotel building more easily accessible. Hopefully the city tells them to dump it.

[amfleisch]

I do not know how I feel about this. The Cubs do need 21st Century revenue streams while restoring Wrigley Field, but I feel like Ricketts is forcing a Disneyland-type of character on the project.

The lights on the giant video screen are really forced. The proposed size of the screen seems too large while the center field scoreboard seems to get lost in all the new signage. I have no idea where to begin with the "Wrigley Field" sign in right field, yikes. Is the "Wrigley Field" script in right field is just a place holder for advertising? The Ricketts need to find a better way to streamline the new signs, video boards, advertising, seating, in the outfield. The way the proposal looks now nothing fits together well, everything in the outfield seems to be fighting for attention.

The new addition at the corner of Addison and Sheffield actually looks okay to me, it reminds me of the once proposed Triangle Building. However, I think the video board and advertising on the top of the new structure needs to tweaked.

The hotel, office building, bridge, and the "town square" is one giant hot mess. The potential is there to do something great that fits well with Wrigley Field and the neighborhood, and maybe a modern design could be used. But the hotel and offices look like the could be placed in any other city in America and blend in. The bridge that says "Welcome to Wrigleyville" is another example of forced, sterile, amusement park type character on this project.

I believe the Ricketts have good intentions with what they want to do with Wrigley Field. And as a lifelong Cubs fan, I know the experience will change at the stadium, and that is fine. The overall concepts are there in the renovation proposal. But nothing is fitting well together, nothing is really all that inspiring to me.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by amfleisch

Is the "Wrigley Field" script in right field is just a place holder for advertising?.

My thoughts too, I dont know why else they would feel such a superfluous design is necessary.

The Ricketts quote that theyre trying to "make Wrigley old" hurt my brain.

Have to agree that this entire thing feels so stale and tossed together...the hotel elements especially. I mean, I get that ultimately the Cubs are corporate and profit driven so its not surprising. But with all the money being thrown at this project you could thing they could be a bit more thoughtful about the details seeing as how well the old model and the neighborhood has served them all these years.

[J_M_Tungsten]

Plaza is great (and necessary). Jumbotron is ok, too large though. I agree that it detracts from the historic centerfield scoreboard. The wrigley field sign in right field is completely unnecessary and ugly. The Hotel and building north of the plaza are ok to me. Is there a reason why there is a connecting bridge over Clark?

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i can't stand the cursive "wrigley field" signs inside the park. we're cubs fans, we know the fucking name of the place.

at least the cubs are beating the cardinals 8-2 in the renderings.

I'm rather sure that in the future that sign will go to a future advertiser. I think they put a generic place marker there just to make it a bit more palatable in the render........

All in all pretty gaudy as I was expecting. In particular the ad poles just south of the triangle office. It way preset just way too much commercial and light pollution right at street level. Hope the neighborhood raises bloody hell. They are the ones with any influence who can really pull any weights at this point.

[PerryPendleton]

WHY CAN THEY NOT MAKE IT SHORTER AND WIDER.

THIS IS TRAGIC THAT THERE IS ANY OBSTRUCTION FOR THE ROOFTOPS.

NOT BECAUSE IT IS SAD FOR THE OWNERS, BUT BECAUSE THIS IS THE MOST INCREDIBLE PART OF WHAT WRIGLEY IS.... THE PARK IS SO INTEGRATED INTO THE COMMUNITY THAT PEOPLE ARE PARTICIPATING FROM ACROSS THE STREET!

WE MUST STOP THE JUMBOTRON!

the rest of the proposal I like