CHICAGO | Wrigley Field Redevelopment News

[Link N. Parker]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^ I think the hate might have something to do with the horrid design of everything except the little building with the Captain Morgan's Club.

As I spend very little time inside Wrigley (have much more important things to focus on than games), I can't manage to get riled up at all about the jumbotron and signage issues. The design of the new structures impacting the urban landscape, however, I care greatly about.

Acceptable profitability level does not neccessitate bad or even mediocre design people. There is nothing at all inherantly inconsistent between great profit and high quality design. Both are acheivable, and the latter should be demanded here...

But here's the thing...I actually like the design. These types of aesthetics are totally subjective, and are in the eye of the beholder. The Rickett's could totally redesign it again, and there would be someone who wouldn't like it.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Link N. Parker

The Rickett's could totally redesign it again, and there would be someone who wouldn't like it.

true enough. you can't please everyone.

that said, it's my subjective opinion that much of the design work presented thus far looks more appropriate for a theme park than for one of the last urban baseball cathedrals left in existence.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I'm all in favor of people criticizing design. But 'protesting on the street'? Come on... like JM Tungsten said, in the end it's just a ballpark..

I'm not sure what anyone has against protesting. How does their form of expression bother you?

Also, Wrigley is just a "ballpark" in the same way that Robie House is just a "house" and The Rookery is just a "building".

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by Link N. Parker

But here's the thing...I actually like the design. These types of aesthetics are totally subjective, and are in the eye of the beholder. The Rickett's could totally redesign it again, and there would be someone who wouldn't like it.

Think about design in different terms. Think about a polling of the nation's top architecture critics, or of Pritzker Prize winners - or, not even of Pritzker Prize winners, that's a little too rarified - AIA Honor Award winners. What would such a poll (a poll of true subject/discipline experts, of overwhelmingly industry consensus high taste level) say? It would be major thumbs down. Just like the movie review aggregator RottenTomatoes. Anybody can have an opinion, and is entitled to one, and dissenting expert opinions can certainly be informative and enlightening at times. However, when you've directed a film - let's call it a family-friendly romantic comedy, perhaps one set in suburban Cleveland, starring Kate Hudson and Hugh Grant - that some people - many people - seem to like, because it makes them feel somewhat comfortable, it seems relatable, it makes them occassionally laugh - uneasily through their teeth, the kind that comes without even really smiling at all.......the film contains every tired cliche in the book, is chock-full of cheesy lines, the writing and acting are terrible and the convaluted plot makes no sense whatsoever......it certainly doesn't challenge the audience's perspectives, or tax their minds, or for that matter really even make them think at all, and the film pulls down decent numbers at the box office, making a quite tidy profit - but that film receives a 17% (my guess at where these designs would fall in a similar type of site, but for architecture) on RottenTomatoes, what you've actually mostly done is offer up a piece of trash (despite the fact that some/many people seem to like it and was a reasonable financial success). And, in effect, that's also what VOA has done here. They've offered us up a lot of trash here....

No offense to your taste level, but everybody can evolve and improve in some way, no?

Alas, architecture is best not approached in a 'it's all subjective, everyone is different in what they like and dislike' sort of way.....it's really just lazy.....

[ehilton44]

Originally Posted by alex1

Also, Wrigley is just a "ballpark" in the same way that Robie House is just a "house" and The Rookery is just a "building".

I strongly disagree with that. Wrigley Field, while an amazing ballpark, is not an a amazing work of architecture in its current form. It was built cheaply, in a utilitarian style. PK Wrigley was so cheap, that after he sold the original steel for lights in 1942 to help the war effort, he didn't want to buy new steel for lights despite being the only team in the majors without night baseball. Most of the additions to Wrigley Field were done in that cheap, quick, utilitarian manner.

That's no excuse for not putting effort into design now (although, I do think this design is pretty appropriate for neighborhood/ballpark), but don't compare Wrigley Field to the Robie House.

[eleven=11]

the ballpark looks nice/ok.

what % of cubs fans think the Ricketts are creepy ???

[thewaterman11]

This plan may not be ideal, but at the end of the day, what really matters is the experience of the fan inside of the stadium. The interior's intimacy truly matters (as well as its structural soundness). Like Ricketts or not, the plan that he puts forward vastly improves the concourse and player facilities. These changes are the ones Wrigley truly needs.

Sure, the hotel building and the building on Clark are not the greatest pieces of architecture, but edits will most probably be made if people push for them. These buildings are not the center of the plan; they are of importance but not nearly as much as the improvements to the stadium.

All in all, let's just fix Wrigley.

[tm30]

I think, ultimately, this is a Solomon's baby which neither side will give to the other.

It's my opinion that Ricketts will move the team to Rosemont. There's easy access from all directions (including the West, once the Elgin-O'Hare expansion is completed down the road), more than enough of hotel rooms, the nation's second busiest airport down the road, proximity to a convention center, casino, entertainment etc. How much could the Cubs make off of outdoor advertising in that location, nevermind inside the park itself? If Ricketts built an updated replica of Wrigley ("Waveland and Sheffield" pedestrian mall included), they'd have no problem filling that park year 'round. Gimmicky? Maybe, but no more gimmicky then what Wrigley has become. Better yet, he'll never have to worry about rooftop owners, city ordinances, aldermen, or how to expand the park down the road. If he put up half, it would be a no-brainer for Rosemont to float bonds for the rest. Hell, he's got more than enough Wall Street connections. He could probably bring in more than enough private equity investors to fund the balance.

Just my opinion, but I think the 6000 sq. foot JumboTron as big as it is -- is designed to provoke a lawsuit from the Rooftop coalition. The advertising sign proposed for right field will be detrimental as well. Once a lawsuit is filed, no improvements can go forward. No improvements = rationale to move out of Wrigley. If I were Ricketts, I'd get out of there as quickly as possible and let Rahm/Tunney pick up the pieces.

[Neuman]

Originally Posted by alex1

I'm okay with the Trib leaving behind millions in revenue. They still built one of the top 3 most cash-rich teams in the league (it recently dropped to #4, $1m behind Philly in revenue) but there's no doubt the Cubs will leapfrog Philly in 2015 after their current television expires next year.

BTW, I hardly think the Trib mismanaged the team from a financial POV. They took a low-attendance team in the 70s and put the power of cable television, the real authentic experience that was Wrigley (Americana at its finest) and paired all that up with some iconic Mike Royko columns that increased the allure of the lovable losers. It's a great case study in successful marketing.

How many World Series have they won? Exactly, that's failure in baseball.

They failed to buy any of the property surrounding the stadium that is worth a fortune now.. Failure.

They let the stadium become a financial drain on the business, so much so that the new owners need to drop $300 million on saving the structure while trying to return it to a building that actually comes somewhat near competing with other teams stadiums financially. Failure.

Leaving money on the table in business is bad business and a failure. End of story, see Tribune bankruptcy for more evidence.

[Neuman]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

The Trib's biggest misstep was not spending as much as the big boys like the Red Sox or Yanks. Which they are arguably capable. Neither did they hire the right baseball people to run the on field operations. That isn't something I yet to see Ricketts carry out though either other then unfilled vague promises that every owner makes.

The Trib took a company they bought in 1982 for something like 25 million I think and sold it for +800 million. Like Alexi said they took a stadium that many summer days struggled to draw 10k and by the end they consistently drew +35k per game and over 3 million per year even charging the 3rd highest ticket prices in MLB. Their marketing success was so well regarded that the Blackhawks opened up a blank checkbook to the Cubs long time marketing director who has turned the Hawks around.

What have the Ricketts done other then given fans other then a noodle, Toyota sign, and hopes pinned on wonder boy Theo?

How many championships did the Tribune over see. ZERO.

You don't think going out and hiring 3 of the most sought after front office exectutives was Ricketts showing a lack of effort?

The Tribune hired Dallas Green and he actually did put the team on the right track in the 1980's and the Tribune screwed the entire thing up. The Cubs should have been the Braves in the 1990's but they stupidly traded away or let walk some of the greatest talent of the following decade.

[Neuman]

1

[Neuman]

Originally Posted by LaSalle.St.Station

LED signage is going to suck. Fenway has most of its advertising on static ( white on green board) signs. The one current Wrigley LED is already so obnoxiously bright at night, can't imagine ten of them going on during a game. Visual over stimulation is what Wrigley was counter culture to. Such a shame. MLB was suppose to screen potential owners of the Cubs so they wouldn't destroy one of the major franchises in MLB. Ultimately they bought into the Rickett's story of Cubs and Wrigley worship, but , in the end they let a son of a rich family buy a team, but who in reality is 'house poor' and has to result to begging for public subsidies and failing that has to prostitute the ballpark out to pay for his purchase.

If you don't think Mark Cuban wouldn't have reached out to the City and State for public financing you've got a screw loose... The Ricketts have a networth other than the Cub franchise of upwards and beyond $2 billion. They are far from house poor. It is looking more and more like the Tribune sale of the team locked the new owners into a long term financing agreement that doesn't allow for prepayment of all this debt used to buy the team.

[Neuman]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

and conversely, i feel like few on here recognize the important of space or the preservation of nostalgia. to me, this isn't a matter of what looks good or doesn't or what is considered nice etc... for me, this an issue regarding the destruction of a very real connection to our history and the protection of an irreplaceable experience of baseball. this model of profit over history is disgusting, and it saddens me to see so many willing to let go of this fight to preserve wrigley. so many have conceded, saying, well, it's a business decision and he's operating his business, so on and whatever... fuck that. he is operating a team that is representative of OUR city and nearly 140 years of history. have some fucking respect for the fans, and have some respect for that ballpark! that's my lament. it has nothing to do with nimbyism.

if ricketts get's his way, wrigley will be destroyed just as fenway was destroyed. and his nauseating appeal to our hearts is shameful. all this talk about how we need these so called improvements in order to bring a championship to the franchise is total detestable bullshit. this is all about money in his already deep pockets, nothing more. i see this as an attack on wrigley field's 99 year past, the lakeview neighborhood, and us fans whom support this team every single year no matter what. it is an attack on this great city, and it is attack on my loyalty, and it completely enrages me. fuck tom ricketts.

While I agree with you Tom that I want this project tastefully done. If Wrigley Field doesn't achieve its primary funtion, which is to maximize revenues for the baseball team, it as a building has no use and gets torn down. And then where will your history be...

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by alex1

I'm not sure what anyone has against protesting. How does their form of expression bother you?

Also, Wrigley is just a "ballpark" in the same way that Robie House is just a "house" and The Rookery is just a "building".

where did you come from?! haha, very nice post!!!

and since when isn't wrigley field historic? i often hear 'well, they've never even won a world series in it'... SO WHAT!? the lore of wrigley and of the cubs isn't base in winning. in many ways, cubs baseball transcends the sport. in many ways, it's not about winning. do i want to see them win?! fuck yes, of course! was i holding my breath in 03 and completely let down in 07/08? yes. nonetheless, winning games isn't the sole purpose of this team. there's a 99 year history attached to that shitty building, and i want it to stay just as shitty. the cubs will win when improvements are made in talent, not in ad revenue.

why so many are sold on this horseshit idea that jumbotrons, ad spaces, and an 'updated' concourse space equals wins is absurd and beyond me. most people are just simpleminded and can't get past nets under the grandstand. you want a nice new stadium? go to miami; leave my team and my stadium alone because i'm very happy pissing in troughs and getting a sun burn in the left bleachers! i'm not there to eat fancy food and shop in a modern concourse!

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by tm30

I think, ultimately, this is a Solomon's baby which neither side will give to the other.

It's my opinion that Ricketts will move the team to Rosemont. There's easy access from all directions (including the West, once the Elgin-O'Hare expansion is completed down the road), more than enough of hotel rooms, the nation's second busiest airport down the road, proximity to a convention center, casino, entertainment etc. How much could the Cubs make off of outdoor advertising in that location, nevermind inside the park itself? If Ricketts built an updated replica of Wrigley ("Waveland and Sheffield" pedestrian mall included), they'd have no problem filling that park year 'round. Gimmicky? Maybe, but no more gimmicky then what Wrigley has become. Better yet, he'll never have to worry about rooftop owners, city ordinances, aldermen, or how to expand the park down the road. If he put up half, it would be a no-brainer for Rosemont to float bonds for the rest. Hell, he's got more than enough Wall Street connections. He could probably bring in more than enough private equity investors to fund the balance.

Just my opinion, but I think the 6000 sq. foot JumboTron as big as it is -- is designed to provoke a lawsuit from the Rooftop coalition. The advertising sign proposed for right field will be detrimental as well. Once a lawsuit is filed, no improvements can go forward. No improvements = rationale to move out of Wrigley. If I were Ricketts, I'd get out of there as quickly as possible and let Rahm/Tunney pick up the pieces.

the fact that people have opinions like this scares me. good lord.

[george]

1. The Cubs aren't moving anywhere.
2. Raise the Jumbotron up just enough so the highest rooftop seat can see underneath to the action on the field. Also, feature a smaller screen on the tron backside for the rooftops to watch... it's not rocket science. It would be unique in MLB.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

why so many are sold on this horseshit idea that jumbotrons, ad spaces, and an 'updated' concourse space equals wins is absurd and beyond me.

It's about revenue. Revenue - expenses. Period

most people are just simpleminded and can't get past nets under the grandstand. you want a nice new stadium? go to miami; leave my team and my stadium alone because i'm very happy pissing in troughs and getting a sun burn in the left bleachers! i'm not there to eat fancy food and shop in a modern concourse!

^ The Ricketts have loans to pay off, salaries, expenses, and taxes to pay. They probably have marketing expenses. No offense, but you sound so naive in the above statement calling others 'simple-minded' when your whole approach to this is just that.

For a younger architecture student like you design is front and center. But I imagine that for the Ricketts ownership, it's probably much farther down their list of importance. I imagine there are hundreds/thousands of moving parts to manage with a professional sports team and their real estate.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by george

2. Raise the Jumbotron up just enough so the highest rooftop seat can see underneath to the action on the field. Also, feature a smaller screen on the tron backside for the rooftops to watch... it's not rocket science. It would be unique in MLB.

^ You know, I was going to propose upzoning all of the property around the stadium to that rooftops could be higher and see 'above' the jumbotron.

But actually, I like your idea better

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

...

i appreciate your business-minded incite. and yes, i'm seeing through the eyes of a person who values certain things over ricketts's financial concerns. i get that. but my comment about simple minds was directed at 'fans' making comments about how they want 'nice' amenities and how wrigley is a 'dump' etc. my comments are directed at the mentality that doesn't appreciate the experience of the cubs and desires a 'modern ballpark'... i'll take my vintage VW bug that smells like gas and has rust holes in it over a brand new toyota camry all day. in this case, the case of wrigley field, i want what we have, unchanged; leave the generic with the other 28 teams.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

For a younger architecture student like you design is front and center.

you must be mistaken and thinking of someone else. i'm not a architecture student. and i'm 27. that might still be young in your book, idk. but yeah, design for me is front and center if we're taking about a building, but this is different. wrigley field is so much more than that.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by ehilton44

I strongly disagree with that. Wrigley Field, while an amazing ballpark, is not an a amazing work of architecture in its current form. It was built cheaply, in a utilitarian style. PK Wrigley was so cheap, that after he sold the original steel for lights in 1942 to help the war effort, he didn't want to buy new steel for lights despite being the only team in the majors without night baseball. Most of the additions to Wrigley Field were done in that cheap, quick, utilitarian manner.

That's no excuse for not putting effort into design now (although, I do think this design is pretty appropriate for neighborhood/ballpark), but don't compare Wrigley Field to the Robie House.

Successful architecture is not just about aesthetics. That's where you and I might disagree on to the death.