You're probably right. I imagine being rin the National Registry comes with a lot of restrictions and red tape on how you can do renovations.
MLB: Wrigley Field in "Brutal Shape?"
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
You're probably right. I imagine being rin the National Registry comes with a lot of restrictions and red tape on how you can do renovations.
Oh ya, saw that too but still, it's not going anywhere. I'd be shocked if Wrigley Field was ever torn down.
And even if it were on the National Register of Historic Places, the only restrictions on what could be done to it would have been if federal funds were being used. They could do whatever they wanted to it as long as it was done with either private, local or state funds provided no federal permits were required. Soldier Field was on the National Register and was simply removed from the Register after it was desecrated by the Bears, the city and the state. Also, being on the National Register is no means a guarantee that a historic structure is not going anywhere. There are tax incentives for historic renovations, but no funding for maintenance. I imagine the real estate that Wrigley now occupies would be a bit too valuable to keep an unused and empty baseball stadium just sitting on.
You realize that the only time that the two teams are in town on the same day is during interleague and they are playing each other right? Same with the mets and yankees. Dodgers and Angels.
The same basic set of workers work at both stadiums in chicago.
Well that solves that issue.
I'm a Cardinals fan, so my opinion probably means nothing on this subject. However, I've seen stadiums like Busch, Miller, Target, which have great architectural features that capture the essence of a city, and the fanbase, while providing amenities that make it a fun experience for returning fans who attend multiple games at the ballpark. Wrigley Field is a place everyone wants to see once, but probably isn't a place a person wants to spend multiple days a year in.
The Cubs need to either: A) rebuild Wrigley on the same site, or B) Keep Wrigley as a historical site with maybe 10 games/ year played in the building and build a new stadium relatively close, perhaps on the shores of Lake Michigan on Lakeshore Drive, or somewhere in relative proximity to the area.
Rebuilding on the Wrigley site IS possible... just go to Target Field to see how they fit that glorious ballpark into such a tiny space. However, the success of ballparks such as ATnT ballpark in San Francisco could also be a good model for the Cubs if they built a ballpark on the Lake, or somewhere else in North Chicago. The one thing that the Cubs should NOT do is build a ballpark like Kauffman or Miller in the middle of a parking lot. Stadiums surrounded by parking lots and no businesses/ bars/ establishments are for football, not baseball.
Incorrect. 8/19-8/21 the Sox have the Rangers at the Cell and the Cubs have the Cards at Wrigley. I know earlier in the year the Mets and Yankees played in NYC in the same night.
(Note: Not to say it's completely inaccurate, but it's not totally accurate. Yes they try to keep the teams away from having both at home, but it doesn't always happen.)
Last edited:
They do try to alternate home stands, but it's not absolute. Still, it would be entirely feasible for two clubs to share a stadium for a season or two.
The Yankees played at Shea in 1974 and '75 during the major renovations to the now-former Yankee Stadium.
I agree with you.
My preference would be to remodel Wrigley even if it would cost more than to just build another one. There are some things that you can't put a price tag on. Sure in the first few years people would come to see the new park. What happens if the Cubs aren't winning after 5 years though? I know what will happen if they're still playing in Wrigley...they'll continue to sell a lot of tickets.
Now if it's not possible to rennovate Wrigley to a respectable level then the new stadium must be built in the same location. There's just too much history with that neighborhood.
Also, I think this is obvious but the scoreboard, ivy, flags, marquee, etc all should be included in any new building.
I understand Cubs fans would want the new Wrigley build right by where the current one stands. Lots of people question how this can be build without losing Wrigley for a whole season. Well the Cardinals did it with Busch. They build a majority of the New Busch around the old one and completed the last portion at the conclusion of the season. Seems like it would be feasible for the Cubs to do too.
Wrigley is a completely different situation.
I understand Cubs fans would want the new Wrigley build right by where the current one stands. Lots of people question how this can be build without losing Wrigley for a whole season. Well the Cardinals did it with Busch. They build a majority of the New Busch around the old one and completed the last portion at the conclusion of the season. Seems like it would be feasible for the Cubs to do too.
I don't think that's a feasible option for the Cubs. There isn't room for half a stadium next to Wrigley without buying up a bunch of property and tearing down buildings which seems extremely expensive given the price of businesses and homes in Wrigleyville. It's cramped the way it is. I can't imagine how they'd pull that off.
I think there is room there. Would probably have to buy out some businesses, but do able.
I think there is room there. Would probably have to buy out some businesses, but do able.
It could work if Clark is rerouted and people can part ways with the McDonalds.
I understand Cubs fans would want the new Wrigley build right by where the current one stands. Lots of people question how this can be build without losing Wrigley for a whole season. Well the Cardinals did it with Busch. They build a majority of the New Busch around the old one and completed the last portion at the conclusion of the season. Seems like it would be feasible for the Cubs to do too.
The vacant area around Busch Stadium at the time they rebuilt was much greater than at Wrigley, not to mention the old Busch Stadium was much larger than Wrigley is. If the Cubs are going to build a new stadium, they will build something much bigger with greater capacity than Wrigley. It would be stupid not too.
The new Busch Stadium was built on the already existing stadium property, which was acquired and cleared way back in the 60s. They moved the stadium footprint on the larger property and reconfigured the parking.
Wrigley is surrounded by valuable real estate. Going west where the McDonalds is now has some merit. I don't know what all is in that block, but there's nothing special about a McDonald's. Clark Street would have to be closed. Otherwise, the stadium is surrounded by property that is in large part just as historic and as valuable as Wrigley.
Most new urban stadiums are built by using eminent domain to acquire slums or rundown industrial areas and revitalizing. People get behind that because you're converting a negative into a positive. It wouldn't be like that in Wrigleyville.
