Why do I find this an outrage even though I am not even a huge Cubs fan? I'm a Twins fan!!

This is in today's Chicago Tribune. You may need to sign up for free to read it, but okay ... build a new Wrigley Field???

If Wrigley can't be repaired adequately, it probably will be replaced with a new, retro-style stadium at a new location (because nearby businesses want it but draw enough crowds year-round to do fine without it, and neighborhood residents are sick of the noise and the traffic and the drunken fans pissing and puking in their front yards).

In any case, expect another Chicago-style marathon political feud, with various interest groups lobbying for the favor of the Trib, Daley, and probably Blago (because somehow the state will get pulled into this).

Maybe if they tear down the stadium, they'll win The World Series.

Danimal, you're probably correct. It appears that the area of land on which Wrigley presently sits would never be able to physically accommodate a new ball park. There's just not enough room without getting rid of a lot of property in the immediate surrounding area. I don't live up there, but this is my assumption on the whole thing.

A somewhat humorous fact about Wrigley: When we are in the umpire's room before the game and the National Anthem is played, the sound of the crowd standing up is rather eerie. We hear this massive rumbling and creaking going on as the noise of the crowd is heard through the roof of our clubhouse. I was there a few weeks ago, after all these stories of crumbling chunks of falling concrete came out, and when the Anthem was played, the same thing happened, except this time we were wondering if the place was going to collapse on top of us. eek!

I used to live about seven blocks from that stadium. Let me tell you, on the nights when the Cubs play, it can be a nightmare.

Addison and Clark St. form a cross of vomit, people straggle into the streets blitzed out of their minds, and those who aren't already drunk pack the bars till they can't stand. I've only had beer poured from the top of a building or a high window onto my hair at two points in my life: after a Cubs game, and one St. Patrick's Day evening.

Maybe because of the lack of space, neighborhood issues, and zoning, the Cubs will build their new stadium in...Peotone!

[ August 11, 2004, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

This story first "broke" ( ) when I was home in Chicago on vacation and I was dismayed by the prospect of losing Wrigley, but not really surprised; the place IS old! But it IS one of the grand old ballparks and if it's going to be replaced, I'd like to see it replicated as much as possible, along the lines of SBC Park, Camden Yards, Coors or PETCO.

FT makes some valid points about life in Wrigleyville, especially after games, but that's a failure of law enforcement as much as of the misbehavin' fans. Parking in the neighborhood is ALWAYS tight, as anyone who's tried to find a spot when hitting the bars in Boystown will attest. So, here's a modest proposal: let's see some really intelligent and capacious parking built into the new ballpark and its environs. No, I don't mean a few close-in VIP spots; I'm talking at least ten levels of parking beneath the park, with multiple entrances and exits on each of its 4 sides, and traffic rerouted accordingly. End the dog-in-the-manger practice of local businesses with parking lots keeping their turf out-of-bounds during games, and require them to subscribe to a common parking management commission, not necessarily a public (i.e., corrupt) one, that will price and regulate their lots. It's not unreasonable to expect folks who do business in such neighborhoods to share the overall costs of doing so there, and relieving congestion is one of them.

After the botch job they did on Soldiers Field -- turning the most intimate large stadium I've ever been in into an arena for the elite -- I don't expect great things for the new Wrigley; but come it will. The current Cubs park is shot to heck and can't exist much longer in its current state or location, imho.
Maybe the City can get its casino by bundling it with a new Wrigley. wink Now [sean connery] *that's* the Chicago way. [/sean connery

Is Wrigley falling apart?

Why, oh why, must they change a thing. Let the park crumble until large chunks fall and kill old geezers in bucket hats. This is WRIGLEY.

Wrigley is more than just the park. It is Cubbie Bar, Murphy's, et al. If people in the area don't like the drunken activity around Wrigley, then consider the fact that they CHOSE to live near Wrigley. Duh?!?

I agree; the park is a tad old. Razing it and rebuilding it based on its current configuration is the best option in preserving this sacred ground.

And if you want a parking deck, target that McDonald's for demolition.

The only question I have is whether Wrigley is falling apart faster than Sammy Sosa?

~Adam

The Magic 8 ball ™says, "Outlook not so Good."

Only if Jesse Jr. (a.k.a. J3) can get a piece of the contract. wink

Sounds great until you consider the real traffic problem: the streets. Addison and Clark are both narrow stop-and-go streets (including some four-way stops!) near there, so the whole North Side becomes a parking lot after games. And even "Baby Doc" isn't enough of a Baron von Haussmann to turn those streets into Second Empire boul'var's. So even a 10-level garage (above or below ground) would be full of idling SUVs for an hour or more after games unless it had a direct bypass exit to the Lake Shore 8-Lane-Freeway-Minus-Trucks, excuse me, the Drive. Which would cost enough to make relocation look better on the bottom line.

Seriously, the only way to improve traffic is to find a site closer to the Kennedy (which would mean closer to the Blue Line :cool: ) and to a major artery like Irving (four lanes plus parking! what a concept!). If they find one big enough for a Camden-style retro stadium and a parking ramp (and I think they can, even on the North Side), it'll probably happen.

Hey, I love history too, but in Chicago, commerce and clout trump aesthetics every time. They'd put in the park east of the "Drive" if that hadn't already been carved into yacht harbors.

Or faster than the Phillies? eek!

Bomb the place. Go Sox!

What about, like someone said, razing the Mickey D's and assorted other buildings across the street, tearing down the current facility, and rebuilding a new Wrigley on site in Wrigleyville? The Cubbies could play a season or two in Comisk....er, US Cellular Field. Sure, the purists would be up in arms, but it's been done: the Yankees played two years at Shea while Steinbrenner turned the House that Ruth Built into the generic 70s facility it is today.

With today's pronouncement that the net-fix won't last, it's becoming clearer than ever that Wrigley's going to have to be replaced, or at least substantially redone. Building a new stadium east of LSD is doubtful, given the sanctity of lakefront parkland, but I think it's pretty clear that whatever replaces it will remain on the North Side and won't go elsewhere. In one sense, it's a good thing that Wrigley is located in a thriving, mixed-use community, unlike some other ballparks that rose out of redevelopment zones devoid of human activity until the parks got there. Conversely, the logistics of rebuilding in that community without stifling it while allowing for easier access to and parking at the park are daunting. But in Chicago good architecture and commerce HAVE coexisted peacefully and - with a few notable exceptions - rather beautifully for over 100 years, so I don't expect this challenge to prove insurmountable either. Whatever the result, I'm looking to more days - and nights - in Wrigleyville. :cool:

I'll say it again - all they have to do is rebuild it in its exact same configuration on the same plot of land.

Tear it down. And build it back exactly as it was. If it lasted this long, it'll last at least as long the 2nd time around.

And as I said before, the McDonald's can be yer friggin' parkin' deck. Blow it up, remove the top three feet of soil to remove all the evil that seeps out of your average McDonald's, and build a four story deck. Hell, dig down deep enough and put another two levels below ground.

Why doesn't anyone follow my commands? wink

Which would leave Mickey D's standing.

But even if they take the McD's land and attached land, it's still a tight fit. See, the Cubs aren't satisfied with "the exact same configuration" ... they've tried several times to expand it (extending bleachers over the street, for example), because the "exact same configuration" doesn't rake in enough dough, and the neighbors have screamed until City Hall said no.

Also, even the retro parks like Camden and PacoBell aren't "the exact same configuration" ... they have skyboxes, food courts, and a hell of a lot more restrooms than genuine antiques like Wrigley and Fenway.

So same-site-plus-McD's could work ... but only if they find an "alternate site" for at least a season, a la Champaign Bears. (The Brewers got around it by building next to their old stadium before tearing it down, and all they lost -- aside from the fatal crane accident -- during the construction period was parking.) But they'd barely have room around the dig for porta-potties, and they'd still have a lot of neighbors wanting them to move instead.

And yeah, Wrigley was there before most of the neighbors were ... but so was Circuit, and a handful of condo-buyers are trying to shut that down by voting the precinct dry. Wrigley is a much bigger "bar" (by volume, at least in season) than Circuit and generates much more traffic. If it weren't a ballpark, it would've been pushed out years ago.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I love Wrigley. But, unlike the Cell and Close Encounters by the Lake, it abuts a residential neighborhood on two sides. And, unlike them, it's not next to an expressway. Us car-luvvin Merkins wants our conveenyunce.

Wonder if it would work to build most of the stadium below ground level. The field and lower level of seating of Citizens Bank Ballpark are below ground level, you only realize it when you walk in at street level and go downstairs to lower level seating. Wondering if more than half of the ballpark could be put below ground level, allowing more room to build higher without blocking the "rooftop bleacher" and other neighbors' views.

You mean the Rose Bowl approach? Maybe ... but that would've made even more sense for Soldier Field (keep the facade), and they didn't use it there. Maybe the water table's too high or something.

It's worth examining, even though it wouldn't solve the traffic problem.

There are never easy ways of solving traffic problems with ballparks and stadiums wherever they are located, but particulary in large, older cities. Mass transit is always encouraged, but we know some people just won't (or can't) use mass transit, although maybe there is a way the Cubs could give ticket holders a financial incentive to use mass transit. If the water table is not a problem, I think an underground parking garage is always best, doesn't take up valuable space above ground (they could always rebuild McDonalds on top of an underground garage!) and an underground garage is not an eyesore.

[ August 27, 2004, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: scottie ]

Kinda like the Phillies season: six feet under. wink

Okay, so when the Washington Senators (I assume that'll be the name anyway) begin play will you be changing your screen name to Ssph?

I agree (but then I think Lake Shore Drive should be underground instead of taking up valuable lakefront space ... and do they listen to me? noooooo!!! wink ). One of the few things I like about the new Soldier Field is underground parking, mainly for the reasons you stated.

As for mass transit, many fans already take it, either to avoid traffic and parking or because they live near the lake and take the El anyway. The current location is next to the Red Line, but a location near the Kennedy (especially at Irving) would be near the Blue Line and a Metra line. (Similarly, the Cell is near the Red Line but also near the Dan Ryan -- in fact, the El runs down the median.)