Anyone here ever been on the rooftops watching a game at Wrigley Field?
If so what did you think of it?
Orioles/Nationals fan
Anyone here ever been on the rooftops watching a game at Wrigley Field?
If so what did you think of it?
Registered User
I've never sat in the rooftop seats but back when Sparky Anderson was managing the Reds, Tom Browning left the dugout in the middle of a game and, in full uniform, walked across the street and joined the Cub fans on the rooftop.
When the TV camera zoomed in on him, I almost fell out of my chair laughing but I heard Sparky was not amused.
I know this doesn't answer your question but I couldn't resist.
Passionate White Sox Fan
If you want to see a game from the rooftops across from Wrigley, get ready to shell out some big bucks. It used to be the people who used to live in the buildings could go up to the roof and catch a game for free. Not any more...the "rooftops" are rented out by private companies, and you have to make reservations months in advance. They fill up rather quickly, and there's more of a social atmosphere up there.
Goodbye Teflon Sky
I sat on someone's 'roof' right behind left field in 2003. They gave us a lot of free beer. Old Style, Budweiser, and someone smoked a J in the bathroom. I had fun and would love to go back again.
Put it in the books
Do people still actually live in those buildings, or are they now just glorified corporate suites, and nobody's there when there's no game?
Passionate White Sox Fan
Yep...people actually live in the buildings across the street from Wrigley. The rooftops, however, aren't "the place to be" when there's no game. And now, the Cubs require those who run those rooftops to give the team part of the proceeds, or else their view will be blocked.Originally Posted by Gary Dunaier
Put it in the books
Yes, I've known about that, and that's one of the reasons why I wondered. But don't the Cubs also promote the rooftops to a degree?
In any case, it's nice to know that these buildings are still actual houses.
Pedrophile/Food Metaphor
That is disgusting enough to make you want to puke!
Ads on the ivy were perhaps an inevitable concession to modern state of the game, though still an eyesore - but this is flat-out despicable!
I live in NYC, and my apartment doesn't allow its residents on the roof, but it doesn't have the utter gall to rent it out to corporations for parties while excluding the residents access.
What about the people who live on the top floor? How would the corporation feel if building residents threw a keg party in the hotel rooms above the conference room the corporation was having its board meeting in?...
The Cubs demanding proceeds is disgusting too. Your view is, in essence, part of your property - at least in the sense that it is reflected in your property value. Rents in tall NYC residentials increase as you get higher up in the building. People who live on Waveland pay for that view!
But, then again, those people aren't invited up anyway, right. So, whatever, let the Cubs rape the corporations who are raping the residents. They deserve each other!
THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT COME WITH A SCORECARD
In the avy: AZ - Doe or Die
Put it in the books
For whatever it's worth, the apartments on Sheffield and Waveland were there before Weeghman Park (Wrigley Field) was built; even though that was almost 100 years ago, I'm sure if they wanted to, the property owners could try and make a case that the Cubs invaded their neighborhood.
(And to add even more fire, one could say that since the Cubs weren't even the original tenants, they knew what they were getting into by moving into a ballpark that had apartments overlooking their walls!)
On the other hand, just for comparisons' sake, when the original Yankee Stadium was built in 1923 the immediate area was wide open, with just a handful of houses and apartment buildings... certainly nothing across the street. The apartments on Gerard Avenue all came along later - in fact, the 8-story building on Gerard and 158th Street (the one with the cell phone towers on the roof) wasn't built until 1938 or so.
Passionate White Sox Fan
The Cubs are known as one of the greediest franchises in MLB, and the "rooftops" are only a symptom of that greed. Not only do they require rooftop view providers to pay the Cubs for "permission" to offer that service, but the Cubs also do things like operate a ticket brokership down the street from the ballpark. In other words, if you can't get a ticket for a Cub game at Wrigley, you go to the broker down the street from the ballpark and pay a broker fee on top of the ticket price.
And, with the ads on the Wrigley wall...don't let that upset you too much. For years, the Cubs and their marketing shysters at the Tribune Company have touted Wrigley Field as sort of a "mecca for classic baseball", and from certain views of the place, they're right. But, things like LED ribbonboard sections under the upper deck roof and facade and underneath the scoreboard, the rebuilding of the outfield bleachers (the "Bud Light Bleachers"), and that rotating ad board behind home plate only show the Cubs are willing to "sell out" their "classicness" in order to make a buck. That on top of the thousands and thousand of people who flock inside and outside Wrigley every day...that just makes the Cubs even more money. I don't think all of that is a big deal, but it contradicts what the Cubs keep talking about as far as promoting "baseball as it should be". Don't let that large, manual scoreboard and the ivy on the wall fool you. It's nice to look at, and looks great on a picture-postcard, but there's more to Wrigley than meets the eye, and it ain't too sweet.
Passionate White Sox Fan
The Cubs have been promoting the rooftops for as long as I can remember. It's just that now, they're PROFITING from the use of the rooftops.
Pedrophile/Food Metaphor
Right, but the construction of the ballpark effects the property value, and the residents who moved there after the park was constructed pay for that. I think my management company would change the asking price of apartments in my building if they came with a virtual season ticket plan...
If that is subsequently taken away from you, you are paying/have paid for something that you don't have anymore. If the Cubbies moved or something that's one thing, but the fact that the stadium is there and the residents' access is restricted just seems egregious.
THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT COME WITH A SCORECARD
In the avy: AZ - Doe or Die
Pedrophile/Food Metaphor
Oh, I'm under no delusions about the Cubs, their (previous) owners, or the role of advertising in the game on the whole. I don't think that the advertising on the ivy was the first stone cast by the Cubs, but to many people it seemed to be the straw that broke the camel's back.
THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT COME WITH A SCORECARD
In the avy: AZ - Doe or Die
The only reason the "greedy" Tribune demands money from the rooftop owners is because these rooftop owners tried to block expansion of Wrigley's property. It was the greedy rooftop owners who caused themselves to have to fork over cash to the Tribune company.
Nor is it greedy that residents of the apartment buildings can't go to the rooftop, if in fact they can't. I live in an apartment and I can't go to the rooftop and I don't even have someone selling seats at the top of the building. If live above a club do you get in for free? If live above a dentist do you get your dental checkups for free? The answer is no so why would it be different if the business is located above you instead of below you. The rooftop owners are a business they sell a product so why would they give the product away for free to people?
They be hard pressed to prove that case since these property owners didn't own the apartment buildings 90 years ago. Pretty much all of them if not all of them bought those buildings after the Cubs were there and after the Cubs helped make Wrigleyville a popular place to live. That would be like somebody buying a house next to O'Hare and then trying to get O'Hare shutdown. Granted it happens all the time. Out in the western suburbs there was a pig farm that had been there for decades and decades. The land near the pig farm was farm land but over the decades and with the big housing boom it got turned into high priced suburbia. Everybody who bought in knew they were buying in next to a pig farm and they did it anyway. Once enough people got moved in they forced a zoning change and forced the pig farm to close down and sell.For whatever it's worth, the apartments on Sheffield and Waveland were there before Weeghman Park (Wrigley Field) was built; even though that was almost 100 years ago, I'm sure if they wanted to, the property owners could try and make a case that the Cubs invaded their neighborhood.
Passionate White Sox Fan
I can agree with you on that. In fact, it wasn't just the rooftop owners fighting expansion...it was everyone in Wrigleyville (the Chicago neighborhood Wrigley Field is in) fighting it. And many of the residents complained about not only the ballpark's seating capacity being expanded, but also the number of night games at Wrigley. In my opinion (and I covered some of the proceedings at Chicago's City Hall), it was all about the money. In other words, when the Cubs did things like expand the seating capacity and increase night games, the Cubs made more money. So the people living in the neighborhood wanted their piece of the pie (i.e., more security in the neighborhood, more contribution from the Cubs into their neighborhood, etc.) But there's something else to this puzzle...it's that since the "rooftops" were becoming so profitible after the 90's (the Sammy Sosa era), the Cubs felt they had to act on something they should've done a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time ago.
There's one thing you're not taking into consideration here...many years ago, when only die-hard Cubs fans went to Wrigley instead of the touristy, trendy, "let's go the park to be seen" crowd, it was pretty easy for people who lived in the apartment buildings across the street to just pull up a lawn chair, set up a small grill, and watch the game. In fact, being able to watch a game from your roof was a big reason why so many people moved to that area in the first place.Nor is it greedy that residents of the apartment buildings can't go to the rooftop, if in fact they can't. I live in an apartment and I can't go to the rooftop and I don't even have someone selling seats at the top of the building. If live above a club do you get in for free? If live above a dentist do you get your dental checkups for free? The answer is no so why would it be different if the business is located above you instead of below you. The rooftop owners are a business they sell a product so why would they give the product away for free to people?
Believe me...there was a time when people would stay away from Wrigley Field in droves because the park was so poorly kept up, the neighborhood was a gang-infested slum, and the Cubs were more than lousy. That all changed in the 80's and 90's with the "World's Largest Beer Garden" attitude coming into play. Harry Caray came to the north side from the south side (White Sox) and became the face of a "win or lose, it's party time" atmosphere. The Cubs became a national sensation with WGN-TV's expansion from a local TV station to a national cable superstation. The Cubs won their first post-season berth in 1984 since going to the 1945 World Series. Also, new ballparks popped up all over the country that looked "retro", dissatisfaction was brewing for the New Comiskey Park, and the neighborhood around Wrigley Field turned from the afore-mentioned "slum" to a trendy, gentrified, bar-filled, tourist magnet that people from all over the world came to see. And now with all that going on, the Cubs, no matter how lousy they were on the field, were an attendance juggernaut. In fact, many Cubs fans would brag about how their team would have 2.5 to 3 million fans yearly despite finishing in last place while the White Sox, who were contenders almost every year in the 90's couldn't draw over 2 million fans annually to save their lives.
So what doeas this all mean? Simply put...when no one cared about the Cubs other than the die-hards, people sitting across the street and watching games for free was no big deal. When the Cubs drew fans hand over fist, then it became an issue. The Cubs wanted to take in every red cent it could in every which way. The whole "rooftop controversy" lasted for months in the news before the Cubs finally acted. Companies came in from the outside to rake in the dough by putting up bleacher seats, grilling and drinking areas, and other social items to draw in folks from all over to experience a Wrigley Rooftop, and those who pay the outrageous rents and mortgages to live across from 1060 West Addison were left out in the cold...or at least at the gate.
Pedrophile/Food Metaphor
hsnterprize,
I don't really have a problem with not objecting to the across the way parties when the team was lousy and then trying to cash in when the team is good - on its face at least. If it is their right to do something about it, and they chose not to exercise it simply by being passive about it, that's doesn't mean that the right ceases to exist.
Ubi,
Hey, I got some apples that I'd like to trade for your oranges... Living above a dentist, dude... are you serious?
Yeah, I'm not allowed on my roof either, for safety reasons, I guess - but the mgmt company doesn't go renting it out to third parties to throw keggers and disturb the residents just to make some extra change that probably doesn't go back into the building. It's just egregious, that's all.
Connie Mack Stadium had the "Spite Wall" too, I don't think Philly won a division title while it was in place. Since the rooftop gustapo embarked on their mission to bite the hands that feed them and squeeze all blood possible from stones, the one postseason that included the Cubbies is marked an image of a doe-eyed dufus in headphones that is emblazoned on the inside of the eyelids of Cubs fans. What can I tell ya, karma's a bitch!
Last edited by digglahhh; 09-20-2007 at 11:24 AM.
THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT COME WITH A SCORECARD
In the avy: AZ - Doe or Die
How in the world is it apples and oranges? Are you entitled to acces to your neighbors apartment? No. Why? because you are not renting his apartment. Are you entitled to free goods to the grocery store in the business below you? No. Why? Because you don't own the grocery store. Are you allowed free services from a business simply because you live in close proximity to it? No. Are you entitled to walk into Wrigley and sit down and watch a game simply because it is next door? No. So why in the world do you think you should be entitled to getting a businesses product for free? Rooftops are a business they charge money for their products and services. Just like the dentist below you and the lawyer with offices next door. You don't expect to take advantage of their services for free do you? So why do you expect to get the services of the rooftop owners for free?
In regards to the Cubs and Connie Mack. Well, lets see Connie Mack was continually operating on a shoe string budget, sold off any player with talent and consequently fielded bad teams. The Cubs have been the Cubs now for over 60 years even when they were the darling of fans. Somehow I think "karma" has little to do with either teams problems.
Pedrophile/Food Metaphor
It's the separate rooftop owners that are the problem. You're entitled to the view from your own property!
I assume that now you'll bring up peeping toms, and claim that Cubs are doing nothing more than putting up a curtain while they undress - but that's not what they are doing, that's what Mack did. What they are doing is giving a strip show in public view and cutting anybody out who ain't waving the cash for a private dance.
The karma comment was facetious; I don't even believe in karma.
THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT COME WITH A SCORECARD
In the avy: AZ - Doe or Die
So wait you are complaining that people can't look out the window and watch the ballgame? Where in your posts before this one were you arguing that? This has always been about not being able to go up to the roof and watch the game for free if you live in one of those apartments.
But no living in those apartments your view was not blocked. They didn't build a brickwall 2 feet in front of your window. What they did do was partially block your view of the inside of their property. Something they are entitled too and something some apartment owner is not entitled too. The apartments and wrigley never had any agreement so whatever "value" was in those apartments was a value that relied on the whims of strangers. It wasn't real. It is like the guy on the wrong side of the street complaining that he lost his lakeview because somebody came along and bought the lakefront property and built a house. That guy isn't entitled to no one in front of him using their property.
Put it in the books
On the Chicago Cubs' official website, click on "Wrigley Field" and you have the option of clicking onto something called "Rooftop Partners."
Clicking on "Rooftop Partners" brings up a photo of Wrigley and this message: "Don't pass up your opportunity to experience a Cubs game from one of the official rooftop partners across the street from Wrigley Field. For more information, please visit www.ballparkrooftops.com." (Underlining added.)
Ballparkrooftops.com, which according to their website is endorsed by the Cubs, has a list of thirteen addresses on Sheffield and Waveland, any one of which you can click on for information on how to rent space on their rooftops for a Cubs game.
So... if the Cubs themselves are offering links from their official website, and the rooftop organizations are apparently endorsed by the Cubs, then I'd say there's got to be some kind of an agreement in place.
Incidentally, here's a photo of fans on one of the rooftops for the very first game at Weeghman Park (Wrigley Field), April 23, 1914 (taken from the "Ivy League Baseball Club" website).
(Interestingly, the building two doors to the right, with the "Garden" sign on the roof, is the same one that has a billboard on its roof today! So even that's been a tradition from Day One!)
X
Ray Manzarek, 1939-2013
Pedrophile/Food Metaphor
Yeah, I understand what you're saying. But why are you being so obtuse?
I'm not saying all people need to be allowed to go on the roofs of buildings in which they live. But, if you're not going to let your residents/tenants on the roof, don't rent out the freaking roof for big parties to which the building residents are not invited. It is just incredibly insensitive. Building a wall to obstruct the view would be infinitely classier. I mean, you still screw the fans across the street, but fairly, and not to the favor of some corporate fat cats who make money hand over fist by secluding me from an elitist experience happening on my own roof. It's just crass and classless. I don't care if it is legal, or precedented, agreed upon, or whatever, it doesn't change the fact that it is a slap in the face of the heart and soul of a franchise that has relied on the loyalty and kind-heartedness of its fans, fans who have put up with failure and ineptitude on the scale of Britney's parenting skills for decades!
Thanks a lot fellas, you've been real loyal, and we ain't done squat for ya - now bend over!
Last edited by digglahhh; 09-20-2007 at 01:23 PM.
THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT COME WITH A SCORECARD
In the avy: AZ - Doe or Die
Goodbye Teflon Sky
Why shouldn't they be profiting?
Registered User
I'm not sure I see the problem in any of this. Why shouldn't the Cubs and the building owners profit?
You rent an apartment. If roof access isn't in your lease, then you get to use whatever's in the apartment.
Most Cubs games are during the day anyway, so not much of an inconvenience to the majority of people who work during the day.
Goodbye Teflon Sky
Plus, the rooftop revenue only helps the club sign guys like Alfonso Soriano, Carlos Zambrano, and Aramis Ramirez.
Obtuse? Do you not grasp the philosophies of commerce? Do you or do you not agree that just because you live above or below a business you are not entitled to free goods or services from that business? Do you or do you not agree that the rooftop owners are engaged in commerce? So why are tennants entitled to the roof for free? Are you entitled to your neighbors kitchen for free?
And what does living next to Wrigley have to do with being a Cubs fan? How is rooftop owners charging people to sit on the roof and the Cubs getting money from them a slap in the face of Cubs fans? The Cubs do not control what goes on on the roofs of those buildings. So how in the world can the Tribune be slapping people in the face because somebody else charges money for services the Tribune does not own?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks