What to do with Wrigley Field-part 2: Why a new ballpark?

Today is the third in a series of Wrigley Field posts I've done.

If you want to see the other posts...
go here for the Prelude
go here for part 1...the Problem

Today, why the Cubs should build a new ballpark.

Tear this place down!

 
Next week I'll conclude the series with what to expect to happen with the Ricketts's in charge. 

But today...why a new ballpark.


First off I want to distinguish between two different "new ballpark" concepts.  The first would be to build a completely new ballpark at a new location somewhere inside the Chicago city limits (or nearby the limits).  And there are actually a few decent sites to do this.

The other option is to move the Cubs to another site for a year and demolish the main grandstand and rebuild a modern grandstand from scratch. This would actually gain a lot more acceptance. 

So, option 1...a new ballpark in a new location.

A new location gives the Cubs the ultimate flexibility.  They can build as big of a ballpark as they want.  They don't have to be confined in anyway, by the neighborhood they are in or by the roads surrounding the ballpark.  They can provide better parking options.  They can be closer to major roads and expressways.  There can be more mass transit options available.

My favorite site is in the industrial area along northern branch of the Chicago River around Goose Island.  Some of the industrial sites are old and there are actually some vacant tracks of land there too.   Overall, I think it's ideal.  It is right off the Kennedy Expressway.  The Metra trains run right along side the area.  The Blue Line has a station in the area.  So it can handle the Cubs crowd, from a traffic point of view, much better than the current Wrigley site.

 

Goose Island...an ideal site for a new ballpark, don't you think?

Another advantage of moving there is that this will help the city to continue redevelopment efforts in the former Caprini-Green area.

The Cubs would also not be restricted on what they could do.  The team could have more night games and put up all the video boards and advertising the would want for increased revenues. Extra decks and luxury boxes won't be a problem since there are no height restrictions and no landmark restrictions on the new stadium.   New hotels, restaraunts and whatever else could be built in the area too.  There is a lot of room for many different projects to go up besides a new ballpark, making the area more appealing. 

Disadvantages?  Well, it isn't Wrigleyville.  It is an industrial area.  Few residences.  The Cubs might lose something as far as the "Wrigley Field" experience by moving there.  Cost for doing something in this area would also be astronomical.  But other teams have been able to do it...why can't the Cubs?

Other possible relocation sites would include Lincoln Park, the Bradley Place/Lane Tech/DeVry/Riverview Park area and, well, the suburbs (yuckers!).

Option 2:  Staying at the current site...

Well, you have the history.  The neighborhood.  So many of the things that give Wrigley the mystique it has.  This option would also be significantly cheeper, I would assume, since less infrastructure would need to be done and no land would need to be purchased (and the bleachers don't really need to be rebuilt). 

Most of the disadvantages for the Wrigley site are well known...

• Poor parking options
• Only the Red Line and buses are available for mass transit...making it difficult for people in the suburbs (or Wisconsin...hehehe).
• Not near any major expressway...closest major road is Lake Shore Drive.
• Neighborhood limits number of night games
• Road configuration limits the expansion possibilities.  

The list could go on.

Where would the Cubs play while the grandstand is reconstructed?  Really there's only two choices there, either Comiskey/Cellular One White Trash field or Miller Park.  The more likely choice would be on the south side as schedule conflicts would be must less likely and the travel distance is much less.  

Ok...so I've given the options, but I haven't answered the question...why a new ballpark?

My first reason for an all together new ballpark is that piecemeal renovations are not enough to really correct some of the real problems I believe Wrigley has.  Yes, putting up the triangle building will allow for new team facilities which they desperately need.  But nothing in the works deals with obstructed view seats. Nothing being talked about will deal with the small aisles.  Nothing is being talked about for increasing leg and elbow room in the seats.  So what we are talking about is increasing the comfort level for the average fan.  I have said it before and I'll say it again:

Wrigley Field was not designed for 41,000 people.

It was designed to be able to cram 41,000 people into it was designed to handle only 20,000 fans comfortably.  Any other stadium (except Fenway Park) can sit it's capacity comfortably, with plenty of leg room and a sufficient number of wide aisles to allow people to move around easily.

This is stuff that, I believe, cannot be done without significant alteration to the grandstand.  Over the years, the seats have been reconfigured a bit.  Where aisles have been located has changed.  Seat angles have changed.  The "boxes" have been removed.  But many of these things have been done to be able to cram more people into the ballpark.

Why not just reconfigure the seats a bit?  Trying to reconfigure the seats with the current grandstand structure might be dangerous, especially in the upper deck.  The upper deck is the oldest part of the ballpark right now (almost the entire lower deck has been, at one point or another, renovated since the 1940's).  We also know that the concrete in the upper deck is crumbling, thus the nets all over the lower deck.  Altering the contrete, widening aisles and rows, replacing seats...they all may be more than the grandstand can handle.

Another reason for a new ballpark is the future.  I believe, for many of the problems at Wrigley, things can be fixed or solved with piecemeal renovations.  And in the end, Wrigley Field would become much more competitive in comparing it with other facilities.  But...Wrigley Field will not be a top of the class facility.  The renovations will only go so far.  And it is very likely that 15 years from now, the talk of what to do with the place will start coming up again  We've seen piecemeal renovations while the Tribune owned the team.  The skyboxes, the new pressbox...adding more seats, the new bleachers, the patio behind the upper deck.  All to bring Wrigley slightly closer to what other ballparks offer.  Well, now those skyboxes are out of date.  There isn't enough concession space again.  The pressbox is way too small again.  In fact, during the playoffs, sections of seats in the upper deck are closed off so tables can be set up to handle the extra press at the game.  Do all those things are going to have to be redone...again!  All those renovations did was delay the talk about a new ballpark for about 15 years.  And so here we go are talking about it again! 

Impressive when built in 1989, the press boxes are severely out of date now.

Traffic is another problem with Wrigley Field.  Increasing capacity is really a dicey thing to try to do.  Right now it is already a nightmare to get away from the ballpark when the game ends.  So you can't increase revenue by adding more seats.  Parking?  Well, the Cubs do own land off of Grace Street that is currently used as a parking lot.  And the Cubs could probably put a parking garage up there.  But do we really want more cars down by the ballpark?  No.  So that's out of the equation.

And traffic is another reason why the Cubs are prevented from having more night games.  Actually, 'more' might be a bad term.  They need more flexibility on night games.  Playing night games on Fridays is actually quite important since many Friday home games come right after road trips.  Having that extra rest (which all other teams have) is important as those short turnarounds with travel take their toll over the course of 162 games.  The Cubs, in their deal with the city, are not allowed to have night games on Fridays or Saturdays.  And people can argue until they are blue in the face about the reasoning behind this and whether or not it is better for the neighborhood...but this isn't likely to change anytime soon and this is bad for the Cubs.  

Now, unlike other old ballparks, Wrigley actually does have quite a bit of room to expand out.  The area along Clark St. is where they plan to put the triangle building.  In the distant past, that side of the ballpark was limited by trolley tracks that ran along the side there.  With them buried deep under asphalt, no sign of trolleys making a comeback in Chicago and all other buildings on that site having been torn down, it sounds like it is full speed ahead for that building.  The Cubs actually have room to expand almost all around the grandstand...which is important because the concourses inside the ballpark are way too small and limits the number of bathrooms and concessions that the stadium can have.  The only problem is the bottleneck on Addison Street, which makes any universal expansion of the main grandstand impossible.  (see the picture)

There's not a lot of room on a small part of Addison St.

Unless Addison was redirect and some of the other building were to be torn down along there, A full scale expansion of the existing grandstand would be impossible.  And expanding the inside of the ballpark everywhere else except there will lead to a bottleneck inside the concourse. 

Now, a new stadium costs a lot of money.  No question about that.  And we now have owners that are severely in debt. (But they won't admit it is that bad...if it's not that bad, then we should be able to eat Bradley's contract!)  But another issue with Wrigley Field is its potential for new revenue to be tapped out if it is not too great.  I don't like the idea of having to nickel and dime everything possible out of the ballpark and still lose out in revenues to other teams.

I look at the New Yankee Stadium as the gold standard in ballparks right now.  The Ricketts's have said they want to have the best facilities in baseball.  I don't believe that's possible unless they build a new ballpark.  I suppose it is possible they could somehow do that for the players, but I doubt it.  But one thing is for sure, it will never be the best facility in baseball for the fans.  Not even close.

Ok.

So there you have it.

Now, there are some building engineers and architects out there that can probably do some miracles to Wrigley.  And I hope the Ricketts's find those engineers (Not HOK/Populous).  But I personally don't see a piecemeal renovation as the right course of action.

I also realize that a new ballpark in a different location, no matter how logical, will never happen.  But the Cubs had the guts to actually tear down and replace the iconic bleachers a few years back.  Don't you think they should have the guts to do the same to the much less iconic main grandstand?  The Yankees have the guts to demolish the most storied ballpark in baseball history.  The Cubs could do the same with Wrigley Field.  Really.  It's not as hard many people think it is (or want it to be).  Resistance won't be any stronger than the Yankees had. 

Well, that's enough.

More about what is likely to happen over the next 4 years in next Monday's installment.