HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #461  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2013, 9:15 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten View Post
Yes, but if you are a resident of that neighborhood, you know what you got yourself into if you moved there, at least, they should. That isn't only for cubs games either. When the Blackhawks won the cup this year, that area was a clusterf*ck, as well as many nights when college kids are screaming up and down the streets at 3 in the morning. I guess the only people who would be exempt from not knowing the consequences of the neighborhood would be anyone who bought a place prior to 1914. And for the record, I don't see anything in this project as an all out negative. If a new score board and outfield signage is the worst of it, I'd say the fans are pretty lucky someone is willing to dump 500 million into this stadium and team.
Im picturing the popped collar frat boys and Trixies of Lakeview circa 1914 now...

Look, I think everyone in the neighborhood realizes the area has morphed into a sloshy entertainment district and theres no sense in trying to turn that around (although despite your claims it wasnt always this way, at least not the way it is now..if anything it was borderline slummy all through the 70s and 80s). But it remains true as well that neighbors should certainly have a say in their quality of life. And for a team that has profited so handily off the image and reality of being a neighborhood and urban ballpark, saying the surrounding area dosent deserve a voice is disingenuous. Now if the owners want to bastardize the park and the building's heritage thats their choice, but I dont think its out of line for city residents to demand a higher standard.

Last edited by Via Chicago; Jul 26, 2013 at 9:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #462  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2013, 9:24 PM
J_M_Tungsten's Avatar
J_M_Tungsten J_M_Tungsten is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,379
I understand your point. Just to play devil's advocate though, would that differ from a neighborhood persons input that demands a reduction in a proposed buildings height or for a project to include more parking? Many times I feel neighborhood residents are selfish with their "ideas" for improvements, and will often neglect what the rest of the city wants or needs for an area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #463  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2013, 9:43 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten View Post
I understand your point. Just to play devil's advocate though, would that differ from a neighborhood persons input that demands a reduction in a proposed buildings height or for a project to include more parking? Many times I feel neighborhood residents are selfish with their "ideas" for improvements, and will often neglect what the rest of the city wants or needs for an area.
No person or entity exists in a bubble...so yes, I think it should be expected that people possess self interest and that may collide with broader plans. Im not one to say carte blanche that "taller=better" or what have you....sometimes I dont think it is, given other considerations like context. Of course if one thing in life is inevitable its change, its how the process is handled that makes the difference. For example ramming things down people's throats China-style may be good for economic output etc., but whats the story on the ground for those left living in these industrial wastelands which were once rural farming villages? As far as the Cubs go...look, the need to modernize facilities is there. I dont think these changes are the end of the world, but its further chipping away at the elements that used to make the experience unique (little advertising, little to no flash and gimmickry, etc). The park is landmarked for a reason, its something special. Im just dissapointed that the current ownership isn't being more sensitive with the current round of proposals which I find bland, ham fisted, and uninspired.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #464  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2013, 7:55 AM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten View Post
I understand your point. Just to play devil's advocate though, would that differ from a neighborhood persons input that demands a reduction in a proposed buildings height or for a project to include more parking? Many times I feel neighborhood residents are selfish with their "ideas" for improvements, and will often neglect what the rest of the city wants or needs for an area.
I don't think there is any universal truth to all NIMBYs all the time. Sometimes neighborhoods advocates are on the right side of an issue and sometimes they are just being selfish short sighted twats. SOAR for instance is a group that I think has on the whole done a great deal of good for their enclave and the city. Not giving carte blanche to anything the Ricketts want to do for their little corner of Lake View is akin to being an ungrateful NIMBY. In this case I just regard it as having good taste and sense. If some entity wanted to plaster 50k of ad signage at Navy Pier or the River Walk would it be a selfish NIMBY to dare suggest that it wouldn't be a great idea? Give the importance of Wrigley to the city I don't see how this is much different.

And I can't see how you can not see much wrong with the plans for the park. Have you seen the garish faux-historical town square with LED fixtures in the planned plaza and the Disney clock tower? Its all just so dumbed down and frankly not befitting of one of the biggest tourist attractions the city has to offer. It really does seem to be a mix of Vegas meets Disney on a massive scale.

The jumbotron is more of an issue for the fans then it is for the neighborhood IMO (except the rooftoppers). I guess I've found myself to be in the minority but I find looking out into the urban neighborhood, the lake, and sky above Chicago to be so much endlessly beautiful and intriguing then blaring jumbotrons and kiss cams will be. I've been to other parks (Coors, Miller, Yankee, The Cell) and stadiums and I honestly feel like I'm deprived of nothing by not having one. And I think when you put up used car signs and jumbo trons you will take away a lot of what some people find unique and awesome about Wrigley which is kind of a serene and old time feel. LED's and jumbtrons isn't what makes a stadium modern. I fear that Wrigley will now have the worst negatives of old school stadiums (cramped, obstructed views) while having the worst of the new school stadiums (over commercialized, trite diversions, faux-history etc.) The Ricketts I think are attempting to be both modern while paying lip service to Wrigleys classical nature and in the end will do neither well. As a result the park will suffer more from mediocrity then a great blend of new and old.

Its all such a shame because I really think that the Ricketts in their short sightedness are cutting off Wrigleys nose despite its face. By disregarding and I dare say disrespecting what most makes Wrigley unique to many people they ultimately are killing its attraction and by extension in the long term diminishing their product and brand all for a few extra million per year. Millions that I think they will lose anyway when tourist and the non hardcore fans will stop coming in the lean years because they don't regard Wrigley as that special or unique anymore.

I'm all for modernizing the ballpark but I'm for making REAL substantial upgrades. Unobstructed views. Raising the upper deck. More skyboxes above the upper second level. A new transparent roof (or even solar roof) like in some new European soccer stadiums. A glass curtain ringing the exterior of the park instead of some cheap link fencing or iron. Some ideas with real creative design and architectural panache. Heck, I wouldn't mind a whole foul pole to foul pole tear down (I think keeping the outfield intact would be wise however) with maybe a Target Field (Twins new stadium) modernity with a PNC Park (Pittsburgh) intimacy.

I just see little else here other then missed opportunities at best and defacing schlock at worst.

Last edited by nomarandlee; Jul 27, 2013 at 3:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #465  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2013, 8:28 AM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,186
In new news......

Seems like the Ricketts just can't deal with getting only 99% of what they ask for and so have to keep pushing until they get another victory.


Quote:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,7192731.story

Patio over Sheffield now in Wrigley mix
Would help maintain rooftop views

...........Cubs Chairman Tom Ricketts wants a guarantee the rooftop owners won't sue, while the rooftop clubs are seeking to ensure their lucrative views into the ballpark don't get blocked.

One idea being floated as a way to break the impasse involves extending the stadium's exterior right-field wall back 8 more feet and building a patio that would stretch above Sheffield Avenue. The configuration would take out a lane of parking on the east side of the street and shut out some daylight.

That configuration would allow the Cubs to move a planned 650-square-foot illuminated script sign back to the rear of the patio deck, maintaining the current views from the right-field rooftops. Such a move could go a ways toward avoiding a lawsuit.

The patio also would provide a spot for the Cubs to stage additional moneymaking events, both during games and on nongame days. The team could treat the patio deck as a trade-off for agreeing not to put a pedestrian bridge with advertising over Clark Street to link a new hotel to the proposed office-retail complex on the triangle property next to the ballpark.............
The Cubs want to be compensated for not having a bridge over Clark St? So if they had made ten more demands then they already did that had to be rejected they would come back with ten other new demands to be compensated for having their first ten bad ideas rejected? A great way to bargain if it can work for ya. Seems it can for the Cubs unfortunately.

..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #466  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2013, 10:25 PM
thewaterman11 thewaterman11 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Morningside Heights, NY
Posts: 81
from Chicagoist
I hadn't seen this rendering for the redesign of the Captain Morgan building; it looks stunning. At least this building is a little nugget of goodness that will come out of the Wrigley renovations...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #467  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2013, 2:23 AM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,949
The design of the development across the street seems to get uglier with time:



Reply With Quote
     
     
  #468  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2013, 2:59 AM
untitledreality untitledreality is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyguy View Post
The design of the development across the street seems to get uglier with time
WOOF. What is up with the two floor add-on atop the brick commercial frontage?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #469  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2013, 12:11 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
WHAT THE GODDAMN HELL?

They can't buy Sportsworld so they decide to copy its design out of spite or something? Gray, unfinished concrete block makes for a gorgeous veneer!
__________________
The only thing better than a V10 is a V12

....but get a V8 before it's too late
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #470  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2013, 2:16 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,404
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
WHAT THE GODDAMN HELL?

They can't buy Sportsworld so they decide to copy its design out of spite or something? Gray, unfinished concrete block makes for a gorgeous veneer!
Gotta keep things "contextual"!

Seriously though, there is nothing wrong with using raw concrete as a material, there is something wrong with building bunkers out of raw concrete and calling them "buildings". This building has all the grace of the most poorly executed brutalist buildings of the 1970's. The problem with designs like this is that, once they age and age poorly at that, they will be so hated that people will lump in excellent buildings of this style/era with them and call for wholesale demolition. We see this time and again in every generation of architecture. It's happening right now everyone sees a horrendous piece of brutalist crap and goes "That building is awful, therefore all bulky buildings made of concrete are ugly and should be demolished". It's idiot reasoning, but it's how people think. So we are losing gems like Prentice because we allowed a good deal of shitty buildings like the AT&T exchange tower or Social Security Administration building in the same style to be built. Speaking of brutalist preservation, someone needs to get UIC tower landmarked and repaired before UIC decides they are going to try to raze it. We can't afford to lose a building that is that awesome. Also, is Weese's 17th Church landmarked? We better do that before some neanderthal like BNK comes along and tries to do away with that masterpiece as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #471  
Old Posted Aug 12, 2013, 10:30 PM
Chicago Shawn's Avatar
Chicago Shawn Chicago Shawn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,797
^^Yuck.

Major downgrade on that redesign. I used to be a supporter of that development south of Addison and now its just devolved into a garbage design. This is the type of crap that makes people fight against neighborhood developments, el cheapo developer sells the neighborhood a bill of goods and then decide to churn out a ugly, characterless "building" that will be a visual downgrade of the streetscape. I hope the Rickets just buy that neighboring project outright and start over with the design at this point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #472  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2013, 7:04 PM
harperpollock harperpollock is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 12
So season is over. How quickly do we expect them to start on any renovations?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #473  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2013, 7:08 PM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn View Post
^^Yuck.

Major downgrade on that redesign. I used to be a supporter of that development south of Addison and now its just devolved into a garbage design. This is the type of crap that makes people fight against neighborhood developments, el cheapo developer sells the neighborhood a bill of goods and then decide to churn out a ugly, characterless "building" that will be a visual downgrade of the streetscape. I hope the Rickets just buy that neighboring project outright and start over with the design at this point.
I'd agree with that except I find that what the Ricketts have proposed for their own parcels north of the Clark to be even worse schlock design then what is proposed south of Addison. Say whatever you want about it but at least it doesn't have a faux clocktower. 20k feet of LED screens. Nor does it have faux-brick frivolous bridge to nowhere over Clark. All brought to you by the crew that thinks the Toyota Sign, Mac Noodle, and Captain Shack are good design/improvements.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #474  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2013, 6:34 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by harperpollock View Post
So season is over. How quickly do we expect them to start on any renovations?
not soon apparently

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,5060221.story
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #475  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2013, 4:08 AM
MegaBass MegaBass is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 645
Quote:
Originally Posted by harperpollock View Post
So season is over. How quickly do we expect them to start on any renovations?
Bleacher Nation: Infrastructure Work Only This Offseason

Quote:
All recent signals have pointed to no serious work at Wrigley Field this offseason, despite the existence of an agreement with the Mayor to proceed with a $500 million renovation and development plan, and City Council approval of the same. Not only did the grinding Chicago political process take its toll on the Cubs’ preferred timetable for construction (well, back-up to a back-up timetable), but an apparent inability to get the rooftops to agree not to sue when the renovation begins has things at a standstill.

The justifiability of any such holdups notwithstanding, the fact remains that the vastly improved clubhouse and player facilities, long-targeted for 2014, will not be in place for next season.

That comes from President of Baseball Operations Theo Epstein (via Patrick Mooney), who says that his understanding at this time is that the only work to be done this offseason involves the infrastructure of the park. That work will be done so that the Cubs can be in position to do the kinds of things they want to do – like, the player facilities – next year. Epstein added to Mooney, “assuming all the dreaded t’s get crossed and the i’s get dotted.” Even a year out, we all now know that such an assumption would be completely unreasonable.

As for the infrastructure work, I do believe the Cubs have been doing $10 million worth of routine work each year just to keep the park functional. What is being done this offseason might not be much more, which is to say that the timeline for the renovation’s completion has probably been pushed back a year, regardless of what the Cubs are able to accomplish this offseason.

Had things gone as the Cubs had hoped/planned, work on the renovation would have started today. I guess it wouldn’t be the Cubs if there weren’t always next year.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #476  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2013, 7:01 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,424
Another Day, Another Utterly Frivelous NIMBY Lawsuit

Crain's reporting today that an apartment landlord Wrigley neighbor is filed a lawsuit to 'overturn' approval of the Ricketts hotel development. Not at all a fan of the design of course, but that's pretty irrelevant, as there certainly appears to be utterly no merit behind this suit.....let's hope this one gets dismissed quickly.....

I wish the city would aggressively go after the frivelous NIMBY lawsuit plaintiffs, through every single legal channel available (yes, I am foremost thinking additionally of Riverbend Condos, but there are certainly others....)
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #477  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2013, 2:23 PM
Chicago Shawn's Avatar
Chicago Shawn Chicago Shawn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
Crain's reporting today that an apartment landlord Wrigley neighbor is filed a lawsuit to 'overturn' approval of the Ricketts hotel development. Not at all a fan of the design of course, but that's pretty irrelevant, as there certainly appears to be utterly no merit behind this suit.....let's hope this one gets dismissed quickly.....

I wish the city would aggressively go after the frivelous NIMBY lawsuit plaintiffs, through every single legal channel available (yes, I am foremost thinking additionally of Riverbend Condos, but there are certainly others....)
This NIMBY lawsuit angle is getting out of control, its becoming at least 1 per month now. Someone needs to spank them with full court and legal fees and perhaps a additional fine for bringing the frivolous suit to serve as deterrent to wasting time and money in our court system. Developers wont counter sue for lost time and money, because that only will make their image worse in the public's eyes.


I saw this guy at Plan Commission, what a joke. He admitted to buying his adjacent rental property in the 1980's, which means he is just printing money at this point as buildings near Wrigley Field sold for next to nothing back then. I only wonder what he charges for rent now compared to the mid 80's? The fact the he admitted to the neighborhood being a better and more valuable place now proves that Wrigley Field and Clark St nightlife has NOT had a diminutive effect on property value.

The most hilarious part of the lawsuit, this joker wants $6 million in damages paid to him. Nothing has even happened yet on this project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #478  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2013, 5:35 AM
MegaBass MegaBass is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 645


Cubs Erect Mock-Up of Right Field Sign, Say It Doesn't Block Views

Quote:
The Cubs put up another mock-up of a right field sign Wednesday and said it didn't block the views of Sheffield Avenue rooftops — but rooftop owners called the assertion "completely false."

The 650-square-foot scripted "Wrigley Field" mock-up sign, which ultimately will change to fit a new Budweiser marketing partnership, was shown as it would be if moved onto Sheffield.

Given the location and size — down from the 1,000 square feet of a previous mock-up in May — "every rooftop partner on Sheffield will be able to have views inside the ballpark," spokesman Julian Green said.

But rooftop owners who also attended the viewing Wednesday morning disagreed, said their spokesman Ryan McLaughlin.

"The current mock-up blocks the views," he said. "That is completely false."

The rooftop owners have threatened to sue if their views are blocked, saying it would be a violation of a 20-year revenue-sharing contract with the team, and the Cubs have said that they will not order the steel for the $300 million field upgrade project until the threat goes away.

Talks between the two have been stalled.

But even without an agreement, the team may install the sign in right field to generate cash, Green said.

And if the ultimate sign looks anything like Wednesday's mock-up, the long-contentious partners finally may butt heads in court.

"We’ve been pretty clear about the action we’re going to take," McLaughlin said.

The Cubs and Wrigley Field are 95 percent owned by a trust established for the benefit of the family of Joe Ricketts, owner and CEO of DNAinfo.com. Joe Ricketts has no direct involvement in the management of the iconic team.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #479  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2013, 3:55 AM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,186
Ughh. The Ricketts just show they are void of any taste every step of the way.

Quote:
http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20131...oss-of-parking

Wrigley Rehab Tweaks OK'd by Plan Commission Despite Loss of Parking

November 21, 2013

Commission earlier this month and would push the Wrigley Field outer wall back 10 feet on the sidewalk on the west side of Sheffield Avenue, in addition to adding a "branding arch" across Clark Street in place of an abandoned pedestrian bridge from a planned hotel to the stadium........

What Lufrano described as a "welcoming arch," perhaps advertising the name of the hotel, will span Clark Street, replacing a pedestrian bridge rejected by Tunney and local residents.

The plan now heads to the City Council Zoning Committee for final approval........
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #480  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2013, 4:14 AM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,565





Advertising arch across Clark unveiled as part of Wrigley Field renovation

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/p...,5756216.story
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 4:08 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.