Proposed Wrigley Field Renovation/Makeover

[9&10]

And it's too bad one of them's not in New York.

Boston and Chicago. Sigh.

No it's not. In case you forgot, baseball doesn't revolve around NY or the Yankees.

Personally, I hope the renovation of Wrigley is a success, meaning that the appeal of the ballpark and the joy of seeing a game there remains intact. It's the crown jewel of the NL.

[Strawman]

No it's not. In case you forgot, baseball doesn't revolve around NY or the Yankees.

Personally, I hope the renovation of Wrigley is a success, meaning that the appeal of the ballpark and the joy of seeing a game there remains intact. It's the crown jewel of the NL.

No you're right it doesn't. I'm a Mets fan, but also a big New York history maven - so our city's insane decision to demolish the real thing instead of renovating it still hurts.

Wrigley is the crown jewel - it's a beautiful ballpark with a great history (even if I root for the Mets when they're in chi-town).

Note: some of the more self-absorbed voices on this board like to read their personal interpretation of other people's motivation into postings. But that only lights up their own.

[9&10]

Yankees preserve their basbeall history. Just because the stadium is gone doesnt mean the team doesnt care about their heritage.

Should Phillies continue to play in The Vet?
Should the Pirates keep playing in the Three River?
Should the Red Sox have continued playing in the Huntington Ground?

All teams will get a new stadium eventually.

Not exactly an earth-shattering statement. . . kinda like saying we're all going to die some day

And that comment about the Red Sox and Huntington Ave. Grounds really isn't applicable. We're talking about a ballpark that was in existance for ~10 years and has been gone for almost 100, do you really think comparing it to the Vet or Three Rivers is the same?

[9&10]

No you're right it doesn't. I'm a Mets fan, but also a big New York history maven - so our city's insane decision to demolish the real thing instead of renovating it still hurts.

Wrigley is the crown jewel - it's a beautiful ballpark with a great history (even if I root for the Mets when they're in chi-town).

Note: some of the more self-absorbed voices on this board like to read their personal interpretation of other people's motivation into postings. But that only lights up their own.

Good point, and that's exactly why I'm in favor of renovating places like Wrigley and Fenway.

[Coach Bombay]

Completely agree. If Fenway and Wrigley are torn down, we will have an accessible history of baseball that is only as old as 1962, the year Dodger Stadium was made. There won't be a single place we can go to and watch a game where we can sit down and say "The players in the first Hall of Fame class once played here." That would, in my mind, be a tragedy for baseball. I hope Fenway and Wrigley stand forever as the sole relics of their respective leagues, the one mecca for both AL and NL fans where true baseball history spanning the entire history of the Hall of Fame can be visited and appreciated. It's a shame baseball can only have 1 per league, but the game is a business - I just hope the MLB has an appreciation for the incredible, historic places where the teams' fortunes were made.

I don't think it will be a tragedy to be honest with you. People love old ballparks, but it's not the reason they go to ballgames. Maybe for the Cubs and Fenway it was, because they were notoriously known for losing (until '04 for the Sox), but most teams have done fine replacing old classic ballparks. The Pirates and Reds did quite well in those cookie cutters after they replaced Forbes and Crosley Field, White Sox finally won a World Series in U.S Cellular after they replaced Comiskey, and obviously the Yankees did great the first year in replacing Yankee Stadium.

[Coach Bombay]

No it's not. In case you forgot, baseball doesn't revolve around NY or the Yankees.

Personally, I hope the renovation of Wrigley is a success, meaning that the appeal of the ballpark and the joy of seeing a game there remains intact. It's the crown jewel of the NL.

Ballparks like Wrigley and especially Fenway are not very enjoyable places to watch a ballgame. Maybe the first few times because are nice on the eyes, but people are packed in like sardines, they are uncomfortable places to be.

PNC Park IMO blows Wrigley out the water.

[9&10]

I don't think it will be a tragedy to be honest with you. People love old ballparks, but it's not the reason they go to ballgames. Maybe for the Cubs and Fenway it was, because they were notoriously known for losing (until '04 for the Sox), but most teams have done fine replacing old classic ballparks. The Pirates and Reds did quite well in those cookie cutters after they replaced Forbes and Crosley Field, White Sox finally won a World Series in U.S Cellular after they replaced Comiskey, and obviously the Yankees did great the first year in replacing Yankee Stadium.

I think the success of a franchise and the enjoyment of seeing a game at their home ballpark are independent of one another. I've lived in Denver for the past 7+ years and Coors Field is one of my favorite ballparks, despite the overall lack of success by the franchise.

I also tend to disagree with your notion that people don't go to games because of the ballpark. Red Sox tickets have been tough to come by for the last 6 +/- years, but a lot of that has to do with Fenway itself. Same with Wrigley and the Cubs. It doesn't matter how well the WhiteSox are doing or how poorly the Cubs are doing, I'd choose watching a game at Wrigley over US Cellular every time.

Your comments about the cookie cutter ballparks are somewhat misleading. Yes, the teams had some success after moving into 'em, but the lifespan of both of those parks were about half the lifespan of the ones they replaced, which to me is more telling. And to illustrate the point, look at the kind of ballpark that Pittsburg and Cincy went with. If those cookie-cutters were so great, then why did they go with something more retro-looking?

[9&10]

Ballparks like Wrigley and especially Fenway are not very enjoyable places to watch a ballgame. Maybe the first few times because are nice on the eyes, but people are packed in like sardines, they are uncomfortable places to be.

PNC Park IMO blows Wrigley out the water.

I guess it all depends on your comfort level and what you're willing to give up in order to get something great. Fenway is cramped, there's no doubt about it, but it's worth being packed in like sardines and it's still my all-time favorite. I haven't been to PNC, so I can't compare it to Wrigley, but of the ballparks I've been to, the only one that beats out Wrigley is Fenway. Of the ones I've been to, my top 5 are

1. Fenway
1a. Wrigley
3. Yankee Stadium (not the new one and not the old one, the one in between )
4. AT&T Park
5. Safeco Field

I haven't been to PNC or Camden Yards, and I hear great things about both, I'm just going from the list of ones I've been to.

[Coach Bombay]

I think the success of a franchise and the enjoyment of seeing a game at their home ballpark are independent of one another. I've lived in Denver for the past 7+ years and Coors Field is one of my favorite ballparks, despite the overall lack of success by the franchise.

I also tend to disagree with your notion that people don't go to games because of the ballpark. Red Sox tickets have been tough to come by for the last 6 +/- years, but a lot of that has to do with Fenway itself. Same with Wrigley and the Cubs. It doesn't matter how well the WhiteSox are doing or how poorly the Cubs are doing, I'd choose watching a game at Wrigley over US Cellular every time.

Your comments about the cookie cutter ballparks are somewhat misleading. Yes, the teams had some success after moving into 'em, but the lifespan of both of those parks were about half the lifespan of the ones they replaced, which to me is more telling. And to illustrate the point, look at the kind of ballpark that Pittsburg and Cincy went with. If those cookie-cutters were so great, then why did they go with something more retro-looking?

You're all over the map here, but I'll try and respond to everything.

I never said the success and a home ballpark go hand in hand, or didn't mean to. In fact I meant the exact opposite. Regardless of where you play your home games, those teams did well, even though they played in dump. Eventually they bulldozed those stadiums, because they were dumps.

I completely disagree with the idea that Fenway has alot to do with how packed the ballpark is night in and night out. Boston is much like New York, they love winners, if you aren't winning, they won't show up, they didn't in the early 90's and late 80's at Yankee Stadium.

[Coach Bombay]

I guess it all depends on your comfort level and what you're willing to give up in order to get something great. Fenway is cramped, there's no doubt about it, but it's worth being packed in like sardines and it's still my all-time favorite. I haven't been to PNC, so I can't compare it to Wrigley, but of the ballparks I've been to, the only one that beats out Wrigley is Fenway. Of the ones I've been to, my top 5 are

1. Fenway
1a. Wrigley
3. Yankee Stadium (not the new one and not the old one, the one in between )
4. AT&T Park
5. Safeco Field

I haven't been to PNC or Camden Yards, and I hear great things about both, I'm just going from the list of ones I've been to.

Fenway Park is uncomfortable and the sight lines are awful, there is blind spots all over the stadium, and of course all the steal beams. After the first few times there, once you get over the historical aspect, the place sucks, and now it's incredibly expensive, even in the upper deck and bleachers.

[RfkFedEx]

Since we're down to just Wrigley and Fenway, I'm gonna call Dodgers Stadium a classic. :hissyfit:

In a few years, half of MLB's history will include the west coast.

Nearly all of the other 'classic' parks were gone before they could reach classic status, and most of those parks lasted 50-60 years like DS today.

Only Comiskey and Tiger demised in the era of nostalgia.

[RfkFedEx]

Back to Wrigley,

When I sat in the upper deck in 2007 on the 1st base side, I looked up under the roof and noticed what appeared to be a bed of wood under the gray paint. It looked kind of like the 4 inch wide floor boards you'd see in any old house.

Not sure if it was actual wood I was looking at, or just the mold of the concrete. I know they used to form concrete with multiple 4 inch wide boards before the days of plywood sheeting.

Does anyone know if Wrigley still has a wooden roof?

Doesn't look like they plan to remove the current roof in the renderings.

[Tino24]

I was thinking the same thing. Dodger Stadium open in 1962

The design and planning happened in the 50s and also the early 60's was the pinnacle of 50's culture. The first couple of years of a decade really reflects the height and influence of the previous decade.

[J.R.]

It's wood.

Back to Wrigley,

When I sat in the upper deck in 2007 on the 1st base side, I looked up under the roof and noticed what appeared to be a bed of wood under the gray paint. It looked kind of like the 4 inch wide floor boards you'd see in any old house.

Not sure if it was actual wood I was looking at, or just the mold of the concrete. I know they used to form concrete with multiple 4 inch wide boards before the days of plywood sheeting.

Does anyone know if Wrigley still has a wooden roof?

Doesn't look like they plan to remove the current roof in the renderings.

[Coach Bombay]

The design and planning happened in the 50s and also the early 60's was the pinnacle of 50's culture. The first couple of years of a decade really reflects the height and influence of the previous decade.

That's not the point.