HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #241  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2013, 10:00 PM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by untitledreality View Post
As for a supposed skybridge... WTF? One of the elements that makes Wrigley so great is the pedestrian experience, the neighborhood is a great area for people on the ground, what exactly does a skybridge accomplish?
Plus, there's something very democratic, and public-square-like, about the whole Wrigley experience, from the age and charm, to the view of the neighbors' residences and the "friendly confines" feel that they contribute to, to the fact that a public transportation station is practically attached to the stadium.

A skybridge is way, way out of sync with all that. It will, in particular, affect the feel of the Clark St experience, probably all the way down to Roscoe.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #242  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2013, 10:12 PM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,212
The 3750 N Halsted (@ Bradley) tower crane is visible from inside Wrigley I believe (noticed it during evening news coverage of a game the other day). So, maybe this has been mentioned before, this new building will become a part of the outfield skyline. The skyline (such as it is) isn't all that pretty from there, so I wonder if this will improve it a bit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #243  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2013, 3:54 AM
alex1's Avatar
alex1 alex1 is offline
~
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: www.priggish.com
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
You must not have thought much about Chicago if Wrigley is the main thing bringing you back.

I am obviously a huge fan of Chicago and I don't watch baseball, never been to Wrigley, and don't care much for the scene in Wrigleyville. To each their own I guess...
One of the main things (as untitledreality already pointed out)

For me, Wrigley has always been one of the unique American experiences. It was something Chicago had one-up on NYC. It's honestly something I've almost lost complete interest in these past few years. Not that it matters as the Cubs will reap rather large financial rewards by doing whatever is in their best interests.

But you wouldn't know about the emotional attachment many Cub fans have to the stadium. As someone who hasn't ever been to a Cubs game, or doesn't care for the Wrigleyville scene, this whole thing is a non-issue for you.

This process has been on the same level as the banal redevelopment of Maxwell St. or the Prairie District. I'm not against redevelopment of certain things but at least approach change through a fresh and creative lens. As clunky as aspects of the Soldier Field development plan turned out, the overall approach was at least clear in its modernity and increased intimacy.
__________________
n+y+c = nyc
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #244  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2013, 5:33 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
I'm less concerned about the planning aspects of the skybridge and more concerned with the architectural consequences. It will be very weird to have a skybridge flying over the Ernie Banks statue and plugging into the facade. I think this compromises the historic appearance of the stadium far more than the advertisements do.

If the Ricketts were to propose (and fund) a pedway, I'd be all for it. I really don't care whether tourists mix with the hoi palloi on the street or not.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #245  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2013, 5:02 PM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by alex1 View Post
For me, Wrigley has always been one of the unique American experiences. It was something Chicago had one-up on NYC. It's honestly something I've almost lost complete interest in these past few years. Not that it matters as the Cubs will reap rather large financial rewards by doing whatever is in their best interests.
.
I feel similar.

One need not be a fan of the Cubs or even of baseball to want the renovation to be done thoughtfully. Not so much for the benefit of either the Cubs or their fans as for the city at large. It would be a rather short sighted to see this reconstruction as an iusse limited to just the club and its fans.

Just as one need not care for boats or water in wanting to see Navy Pier redone right one need not be a Cubs fan to want to see Wrigley touched up well. Open up almost travel book on Chicago and one of the first things listed to do is to "take in a day game at Wrigley". It is still I believe the second or third most visited tourist site in our state. Outside of downtown it is probably the most visited part of the city by suburban, regional, and national visitors. It is important to do right and not cut off the nose despite its face. There should be more public discussion about what makes Wrigley special to those that do venture to Wrigley both locally and from outside. I would argue the outfield sweep, bleachers, and vistas are the highest on that list.

I really feel that the Ricketts are being extremely short sighted and consider their plans perilously close to defacing Wrigley's best assets and lessening its appeal. All the while making very minimal if any improvements to aspects of the parks that could use the real overhaul. And Rahm doesn't seem to have any intent of directing a more thoughtful reconstruction. To him its just a headline grabbing win if the Cubs pick up the full tab no matter what the end result. And Tunney cares but for seemingly all the wrong reasons.

Last edited by nomarandlee; Apr 15, 2013 at 5:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #246  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2013, 10:05 PM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,212
^^ I would figure the skybridge would just hop across Clark into the "triangle buliding" -- traversing clear across the plaza directly into the stadium would indeed be a ridiculous eyesore. Although I haven't been following what might be going on with the triangle lot in these negotiations.

A subterranean connection, with limited access between basements of the respective structures to prevent public mobs from peeing and spilling beer in there at all hours, is a much better idea.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #247  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2013, 3:06 AM
LaSalle.St.Station's Avatar
LaSalle.St.Station LaSalle.St.Station is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 335
who do these people think they are ? Northwestern Memorial Hospital

Quote:
Originally Posted by denizen467 View Post
^^ I would figure the skybridge would just hop across Clark into the "triangle buliding" -- traversing clear across the plaza directly into the stadium would indeed be a ridiculous eyesore. Although I haven't been following what might be going on with the triangle lot in these negotiations.

A subterranean connection, with limited access between basements of the respective structures to prevent public mobs from peeing and spilling beer in there at all hours, is a much better idea.
I hope this pedestrian bridge crap gets shot down, if not in the broad overall agreement, then in the city permit process.

First of all how many hotel guests are going to have reasons to be using the bridge to go to Cub front offices ? Hardly any. This structure is primarily for the benefit of Cub executives and office workers to use the bridge to go to lunch, work out, and run to conferences in the hotel with out having to walk outside and endure the weather, street rif raf and the other harsh realities of urban living they supposedly embrace and want to preserve.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #248  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2013, 3:45 AM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,280
No skybridge. Seriously you let one happen and they'll be going up all over Chicago. The only places that should be allowed to build skybridges and immune to public objection are hospitals or office buildings / malls connected to elevated transit stations. That's it.

I'm worried this will be some monumental structure like the Sox skybridge over 35th.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #249  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2013, 4:41 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
Crain's has the outlines of the deal, to be announced tomorrow.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...n-deal-reached

It includes all the things that have been mentioned so far, including a left field jumbotron, expansion into Sheffield/Waveland, more parking, and a skybridge between the hotel and triangle building. Lots of things to hate, including this little surprise:

Quote:
The Cubs will be allowed to build a two-story Captain Morgan Club on Addison Street, with a merchandise store and first-floor space for the visiting team clubhouse. The current Captain Morgan Club, one the southeast corner of the ballpark, is a small, one-story pavilion.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #250  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2013, 5:01 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
^ Gotta let a business adapt to the demands of a new era. Modifying Wrigley is needed to save it. Fenway had to do this as well.

I'm reading the same article, and I'm just not reading anything all that outrageous. By the way, it appears that the pedestrian bridge connects the hotel to the triangle building, not the stadium itself.
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #251  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2013, 2:39 PM
rgolch's Avatar
rgolch rgolch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 887
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
You must not have thought much about Chicago if Wrigley is the main thing bringing you back.

I am obviously a huge fan of Chicago and I don't watch baseball, never been to Wrigley, and don't care much for the scene in Wrigleyville. To each their own I guess...
If you've never been to Wrigley, I'm not really sure you should be that critical of what nomarandlee, or alex1, or any other forumer is saying about this issue. To be honest, I'm not a baseball fan either. But I still go to Wrigley field on occasion. And the biggest draw is that it's like going to a baseball museum. It's one of the oldest and most charming professional sports venues in the country. I'm not against renovating Wrigley field, but that sense of charm and nostalgia can't be threatened. I'm really weary of the Jumbotron as I think it's going to bring vulgar consumerism into an old, cherished Chicago landmark. Whatever.

TUP, seriously, do yourself a favor and get to Wrigley Field before any changes happen. You obviously have a lot of time. And then ask yourself if you feel the same way.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #252  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2013, 6:37 PM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,334
I thought the Cubs patronizing campaign slogans ("its a way of life" etc.) were embarrassing but they truly have a Disneyesque approach that is intent on making the immediate neighborhood there little kitschy kingdom. Putting up a sign that says "Welcome to Wrigleyville" takes the cake in treating fans and neighbors as nothing other then contemptible custies.

Quote:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...,4462429.story

......The team also plans to construct a pedestrian bridge over Clark Street without having to purchase air rights from the city. The bridge would have a "Welcome to Wrigleyville" sign.......

The Cubs released additional details about signage in their proposal to the city:

-- It plans an LED "ribbon board" along the upper deck grandstand, a new fan deck in left field and a new signs on the wall in right field and behind home plate.

-- Also planned are signs on the new two-story Captain Morgan Club on Addison Street

-- And 35,000 square feet of advertising outside the ballpark between the hotel, outdoor plaza and Captain Morgan Club.

The rooftop owners on Monday again rattled a legal saber, saying the “owners reserve the right to use any and all means necessary to enforce the remaining 11 years of our 20-year contract.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaSalle.St.Station View Post
First of all how many hotel guests are going to have reasons to be using the bridge to go to Cub front offices ? Hardly any. This structure is primarily for the benefit of Cub executives and office workers to use the bridge to go to lunch, work out, and run to conferences in the hotel with out having to walk outside and endure the weather, street rif raf and the other harsh realities of urban living they supposedly embrace and want to preserve.
Actually I think it is indeed going to be used more as a selling point for higher end hotel visitors. At first glance it will offer a very sanitized, conveinat, self-contained, and provide an air of exclusivity to the epxerience. Though I can't relate for some out of towners in particular that "Wrigley experience" may have actually appeal I would guess goes the thinking. "You will be able to roll out of bed, cross a hallway, and climb into your seat at the park without even having to go through the hordes of fans and streets of Chicago! How utterly convenient".

I actually don't figure the Cubs executives or workers care that much about connected right at the hotel. If it was a bridge from the Triangle Building (Cubs offices) into the ballpark then I think there would be some of that.

Last edited by nomarandlee; Apr 16, 2013 at 2:05 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #253  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2013, 10:30 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
It's a tricky balance, I'll admit. You need to be respectful of the ballpark's history and update its amenities to be comparable with a modern baseball palace, while at the same time avoiding Disney schtick.

I thought we had gotten away from the retro ballpark stuff with awesome contemporary ballparks like Target Field and Great American, but obviously that kind of design would be inappropriate for Wrigley.

The only proven approach is to be as accurate as possible, working off of old photos and drawings to bring back the 1920s appearance of Wrigley. It's really tough to do that when the Ricketts are breathing down your neck and trying to stuff video screens on every surface bigger than a street sign.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #254  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2013, 8:03 PM
alex1's Avatar
alex1 alex1 is offline
~
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: www.priggish.com
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ Gotta let a business adapt to the demands of a new era. Modifying Wrigley is needed to save it. Fenway had to do this as well.

I'm reading the same article, and I'm just not reading anything all that outrageous. By the way, it appears that the pedestrian bridge connects the hotel to the triangle building, not the stadium itself.
There may be some truth to this if the numbers supported your assertion (modifying Wrigley is needed to save the business). The Cubs, despite having one of the smaller ballparks in baseball, are an extremely cash rich team. In fact, they take in more revenue than the Giants, Dodgers, Cards, Rangers or Tigers. Most of these teams are in large markets and most of these teams have new stadiums with massive amounts of advertising dollars and skyboxes. The Cubs are are also expected to receive massive amounts of new revenue at the end of their WGN deal (2014).

The Cubs are alright.
__________________
n+y+c = nyc
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #255  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2013, 4:55 AM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,280
I went to a game at this outdated pile of junk tonight.



j/k

Seriously, I hope it can tastefully be done. With it on my mind, I only thought about the screens today looking across the field and seeing them blaring and bright. It's like people who go on a camping trip and don't put down their phones. We stare at screens all day. Then again many phones stare at their phones at Wrigley regardless.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #256  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2013, 3:50 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by alex1 View Post
There may be some truth to this if the numbers supported your assertion (modifying Wrigley is needed to save the business). The Cubs, despite having one of the smaller ballparks in baseball, are an extremely cash rich team. In fact, they take in more revenue than the Giants, Dodgers, Cards, Rangers or Tigers. Most of these teams are in large markets and most of these teams have new stadiums with massive amounts of advertising dollars and skyboxes. The Cubs are are also expected to receive massive amounts of new revenue at the end of their WGN deal (2014).

The Cubs are alright.
^ Just think how much more cash rich they'd be if they completed the renovations. Some charm would be lost, but people will still love to come to old Wrigley, I bet.

Now just think how much richer they'd be if the Cubs were actually good. My God, just win a damn pennant this century. That's not too much to ask for, really
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #257  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2013, 4:03 PM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ Just think how much more cash rich they'd be if they completed the renovations. Some charm would be lost, but people will still love to come to old Wrigley, I bet.
Really the only renovations some people are moaning about are the changes to the outfield. I don't think anyone is not telling them to improve their in house amenities or the hotel.

And the estimates I've seen are 5 million for the ads on the jumbo tron. Some nice extra pocket change? Sure. Is 5 million anywhere near the difference between a world series winner when most MLB payrolls are +100 million and Forbes estimated their revenues last year to be 275 million (with the MUCH more lucrative TV deal they will be able to pursue in a few years).

I don't think 5 million is simply worth it in the larger scheme of things when you factor in that a lot of people will feel the experience at Wrigley is diluted with all the LED noise. It will be less attractive to at least some of the tourist and suburbanites who venture to Wrigley when they otherwise wouldn't. The same people who come to the park to enjoy and take in a game even when the team isn't winning and allows the Cubs to charge the 2nd highest tickets in baseball and still draw close or over to 3 million (the gold standard in MLB) without winning for years. ANY other team would love to have such insurance policy against having to do well to draw at the gate and yet the Cubs are seriously jeopardizing that I think.

Quote:
Now just think how much richer they'd be if the Cubs were actually good. My God, just win a damn pennant this century. That's not too much to ask for, really
Only marginally. They already have the 2nd highest ticket prices in MLB and they still draw almost or over 3 million per year. I think their highest yearly attendance was 3.2mill. We will see if the Ricketts make good on their promise to reinvest all money back into the time (no way to verify of these bold claims by them).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #258  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2013, 7:14 AM
Neuman's Avatar
Neuman Neuman is offline
The Moon Rulez! #1
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Northside
Posts: 151
If you miss Tribune ownership their is something wrong with you Alexi. Ricketts is doing everything the Trib should have been doing themselve while they owned the team for almost 30 years. The Cubs have been leaving millions upon millions in revenue on the table for decades because of the Trib's lack of vision and incompent management of the franchise. They even sold the team for far less than what it actually is worth, especially now that these regional sports network tv deals are adding $100 million plus annually to the revenues...
__________________
Alright, when I say your name, you say 'here.' And we will assume 'here' is short for 'here I am...rock you like a hurricane. -Ignignokt

Last edited by Neuman; Apr 18, 2013 at 7:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #259  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2013, 7:29 AM
Neuman's Avatar
Neuman Neuman is offline
The Moon Rulez! #1
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Northside
Posts: 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
I'm less concerned about the planning aspects of the skybridge and more concerned with the architectural consequences. It will be very weird to have a skybridge flying over the Ernie Banks statue and plugging into the facade. I think this compromises the historic appearance of the stadium far more than the advertisements do.

If the Ricketts were to propose (and fund) a pedway, I'd be all for it. I really don't care whether tourists mix with the hoi palloi on the street or not.

The new office building on the triangular plot of land West of the park is going to be connected directly to the ball park by two sky bridges that will hang over the Seminary Promenade between the office building and stadium. This was in the renderings released at the convention. The hotel sky bridge will most likely link to the roof of the office buidling as well. I have a feeling the top of the office building is going to be open space for concessions and seating for people to picnic. Hopefully the two new buildings will compliment Wrigley. I'm hoping for a white terracotta brick exterior.
__________________
Alright, when I say your name, you say 'here.' And we will assume 'here' is short for 'here I am...rock you like a hurricane. -Ignignokt

Last edited by Neuman; Apr 18, 2013 at 7:50 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #260  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2013, 3:40 PM
alex1's Avatar
alex1 alex1 is offline
~
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: www.priggish.com
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ Just think how much more cash rich they'd be if they completed the renovations. Some charm would be lost, but people will still love to come to old Wrigley, I bet.

Now just think how much richer they'd be if the Cubs were actually good. My God, just win a damn pennant this century. That's not too much to ask for, really
Meh. Just think how much richer we'd all be if we worked 20 hour days, 7 days a week? Something tells me that quality of life/quality of the ballpark matters.

Cubs will be either #2 or #3 in generated revenues with their new T.V. deal for the 2015 season. And that's without any changes to the ballpark/surrounding streets. So what are we really talking about here? Are we talking about, as your argument was, survival of a business? Or is it more about building millions more in value for a family that's already oozing in cash? Because if you haven't experienced the Wrigley experience, you really don't know what's at stake here. I can't tell you how many people who I dragged to games who hated baseball come out in love with the Wrigley experience.
__________________
n+y+c = nyc
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 1:00 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.