I love Wrigley Field, some of my greatest times on this planet have been in the 'Friendly Confines'. The ballpark is an historic icon that attracts people from all over this great land of ours and further afield. It is like stepping back in time, when you walk up those steps under the stands and see the beautiful greensward in front of you it's like seeing the Capitol Building, Mount Rushmore, Grand Canyon or the Statue of Liberty for the first time, you get a thrill, even though you've been hundreds of times the lustre never fades. Wrigley survives in this high tech age where everything has to be brand new and pretty much 'disposable', the stories contained within it's walls would fill hundreds of volumes, it's a setting that only Fenway Park it's older cousin in Boston can emulate.
Having said all the above though, is it time to tear the old girl down or leave her as a 'baseball museum' and build a new retro-style ballyard somewhere else in town? Is Wrigley really part of the problem why this team hasn't won anything since 6 years before it was built? Obviously a ballpark can't pitch, hit and run for you but in the Cubs case it contains an atmosphere of failure that is hard to ignore. Would a new ballpark bring about a change in fortunes? Could Wrigley and the issues connected with it, poor parking, facilities, more day games etc really effect how this team does over the course of 98 years? I personally don't think Wrigley has anything to do with how the team performs on the field, a ballpark is a ballpark and it's the team on the field that influences how successful you'll ultimately be but it is interesting to find out how the rest of you on this message board feel, without the sniping and bickering associated with many of the threads. This is just a purely general 'Baseball' question, it is not designed to be contoversial or negative, just a question that would be asked in a normal honest conversation.
I await your thoughts....
Funny how this Wrigley garbage only comes up when the team blows. You don't hear a word about it in winning seasons.
Wrigley is the main attraction/cash cow. It's not going anywhere.
My answer is yes- but not for a couple years. The problem with doing it now, is that this team itself is not going to draw fans in. The reason people still come out to wrigley is for the atmosphere. Throw a really bad team into a new stadium, and the fans may not follow. Ricketts will bring in less money, and it could hand cuff some of the big moves a team like the cubs has the potential to make.
In a couple years when they are on the verge of becoming really good and are rich with young talent, then you make the move. People will be excited about the new team and following them to a new stadium.
This topic comes up every year, whether Cubs are good or not. Being a traditionalist, I love WF and hope to one day see WS bunting adorning the rafters. Sadly, in my lifetime, I doubt I'll ever see it.
That said, I would not object to blowing the place up and building a new park, either on site (would have to temporarily play at wsox park or milw) or somewhere else in the city. This park represents too much losing and a losing history. Maybe a change would be a good thing?
<<but in the Cubs case it contains an atmosphere of failure that is hard to ignore.>>
If one is realistic about their Cubs experience, they would acknowledge the presence of TheWeight and how it hangs over WF. True, its just a park, but I do think WF is part and parcel of the more universal TheWeight.
They built a new Yankee stadium, remodeled Fenway.
It's not blasphemous to improve the venue you play in or build a new stadium.
I have a friend in Boston who talked about the remodeling of Fenway and they took out the troughs in the bathrooms there.
The majority of male fans are happy.
I know I wont miss them in Chicago.
Wrigley aint a freakin' shrine.
Not to be confused with the Taj Mahal.
It's a dump, its dirty, crowded, not enough bathroom or food courts, no parking in the area,
Small clubhouses, dugouts, dressing areas for umps and concession help, narrow concources.
20 years ago Wrigley was still a nice looking place. No more
Stop calling it a shrine!
Wrigley Field is a great ballpark for about 25k. But it was never intended to hold much more than that. The aisles are narrow, there are many seats with obstructed views, the concourse is cramped, and the washrooms are a disgrace. I prefer seeing the Cubs in Milwaukee, St. Louis, or Cincinnati (and probably many other ballparks that are far better than our own).
Being a Cubs fan does not mean that I have to be a Wrigley Field fan. And I definitely am not a WF fan.
Blue - I understand your logic but we continue to prolong the inevitable. The park either needs to be gutted and rebuilt on site, or torn down and a new park built elsewhere. The land is too valuable to be a museum unless the HOF could be moved here.
Government aide could only come with a new facility south or west of downtown. I'd prefer big plans instead of small ones. To use Jerry Jones' term, a world class facility on the lake in place of Soldier Field and a dome west of McCormick but this is not going to happen.
I can't see investing big money into Wrigley with all the interference from the politicians and neighbors. I think the interference is what will lead to a move unless Rahm can strip the Alderman of zoning control over the property. Even then there is little room for expansion and difficult traffic problems.
No doubt Wrigley has problems, it is cramped, the bathrooms are pretty awful and of course there are the obstructed view locations. The price we've paid for a neighborhood ballpark that was put up when fans didn't quibble about such things, they came to see their team play and they were the problems everyone put up with. I'm with you on the bathrooms, they need to be overhauled, designed better and kept clean just like they have been at Fenway. We're in a new age, people of today want comfort and luxury in pretty much everything they do, even going to an old ballpark. The pleasure for me going to Wrigley is that i get to pretty much capture the atmosphere my forefathers had going to a game. Sipping martini's on some patio, (though you can do that at WF now too) and trying to decide what sushi dish to choose before taking my seat is not for me, give me some good old-fashioned baseball, played outdoors in an 'original' stadium, with intamate seating close to the action, no mascots, old and new music playing, vendors plying their trade, an old fashioned hand-operated scoreboard, a dog and a beer as the staple ballpark fayre and a trip back in time to watch 'modern' baseball. If that means i have to put up with cramped aisles and concourses so be it, what are we breeding today, a nation of 'wimps'? You're there to 'watch' a ballgame not do research for "Modern Home Design" magazine. Sure it is nice to sit in plastic upholstered chairs with a 2 foot gap between aisles, food courts serving every kind of culinary delight, an amusement park behind the rightfield wall or even a swimming pool just past the outfield fence (D-Backs) but you lose something in the conversion. The timeless quality of the game is better observed and absorbed in places like Fenway and Wrigley than in Great American, Minute Maid and Citi Field.
It's just my opinion Ken of course and everyones will be different....!
Agree 100%.If they can tear down Yankee stadium they can tear down any stadium.Even if they leave it up as some sort of museum or tourist attraction I'm fine with that but the Cubs need a new park.It's not like there is a lot of positive history for the Cubs in Wrigley that they need to preserve.
Build a modern day version on the McCormick land, right by the lake and easy to get to.