Obsessive Wrigley Renovation Watch: Sheffield Patio Deck Could Be Key to Two Problems

respect wrigleyWhen City Council last week approved the Wrigley Field renovation and development plan, it did so on the understanding that, as part of the implementation of that approval, the Chicago Cubs would not build a pedestrian bridge spanning Clark Street, between the proposed hotel and plaza. The Cubs were likely not thrilled with that decision, having fought hard to include the bridge, which would have featured valuable advertising, in the plan.

Separately, the Cubs and the Ricketts Family have been clear that, although City Council approved the plans, the organization will not order a single shovel on any part of the project until they’ve got some certainty that the owners of the rooftop building that outline the outfield at Wrigley will not sue when the Cubs put up two large outfield signs, which have already been approved.

On their respective faces, these two issues – the bridge thing and the rooftops-don’t-sue thing – have nothing to do with each other. Heck, they’re on opposite sides of the ballpark. But a proposed solution may be picking up steam, and it could simultaneously address both issues: a new patio deck in right field. We touched on it briefly when discussing City Council’s approval, but, because it is a relatively new plan, it has not yet had time to be fully fleshed out, here, or by City Council.

In short, as part of the renovation, the Cubs would construct a patio behind the right field wall (which would be moved back an additional eight feet, beyond the seven feet already approved), which would overhang Sheffield Avenue. This patio could potentially extend all the way across Sheffield, and maybe even connect to a bridge to the Addison Red Line L stop.

On the patio, the Cubs would place the approved 650 square foot advertising sign behind the right field wall, and could also potentially place – on the street-facing sides – advertising that would have been placed on the now scuttled Clark bridge (though the traffic on each street is probably not comparable, especially when a game isn’t being played). Placing that 650 square foot sign at the back of the patio would potentially remove it completely from the rooftop views. You can read more about the proposed patio, and see some renderings here at DNAinfo.

While it sounds like a potential solution, it is not without problems. First, according to a report from the Tribune, several neighbors/neighborhood groups have already expressed concerns about the utility and aesthetics of the patio. Second, based on the renderings included in the DNAinfo piece above, the patio does look like it has the potential to stand out like a big, ugly thumb. As with any changes outside of the park, it would have to be very tastefully done to win approval, even if it was supported by the rooftops.

There are also potential issues, at least as I see them, from the Cubs’ perspective. First, a “bridge” from the L to the east side of the park is nice and all, but I suspect part of the reason for having the bridge on Clark is because there is more foot traffic on that side, and that’s where the plaza – and commercial opportunities – will be. Second, as noted above, advertising opportunities on a Sheffield patio are probably not equal to a bridge spanning Clark Street. Third – and this is a big one – will that 650 square foot sign still be visible regularly on television if it’s placed far back from the outfield wall? The rate for that sign will be determined in large part by how much it will be show on television.

I have no idea whether these issues – or the community issues noted by the Tribune – will prove an impediment to this otherwise relatively creative solution to two seemingly unrelated problems. For their part, the Cubs say that they are open to discussing this approach, and the Mayor recently suggested, per the Sun-Times, that the Cubs and rooftops may be able to find common ground on this solution to the sign issue.

I do know that the timing of a change like this to the plans could post a construction problem, if starting construction after the season is the goal. Because this new patio would require not only a change to the ballpark, but also more taking of public land on Sheffield, it is my understanding that approving it would have go through the same planned development process as the overall plan, which can take weeks, even if everything goes quickly and smoothly. And City Council doesn’t meet again until September 11. The Sun-Times piece indicated that the Southport Neighbors Association – one of the most vocal neighborhood organizations throughout this process – has scheduled an August 14 community meeting at which the patio plan will be discussed.

Brett Taylor is the editor and lead writer at Bleacher Nation, and can also be found as Bleacher Nation on Twitter and on Facebook.

109 responses to “Obsessive Wrigley Renovation Watch: Sheffield Patio Deck Could Be Key to Two Problems”

  1. Kevin F.

    Have the local businesses weighed in on these various proposals? Did I simply miss that? For example, foot traffic from the El is very important to them, game day or no. So would the placement of a patio be.

  2. fearbobafett

    at some point Rickett’s family is going to get fed up with all these “changes” and lack of money streams coming in, and are just going to say the heck with it and either leave or make it so that the neighborhood is impacted by doing construction during the season and the cubs playing elsewhere. At somepoint the Cubs are going to be forced to do the constuction during the season with all these delays.

  3. cubfanincardinalland

    The mayor fails to mention, how does this help in blocking views from left field, which is a much bigger sign? Are those rooftops just going to say oh well what the heck. The whole fiasco gets more convoluted every week.

  4. jh03

    Fun fact. If you sort UZR, for all qualified players, the Cubs have 3 in the top 12. Barney tops the list at 6, Valbuena at 10, and Rizzo at 12. Not really great information… but something lol.

  5. DarthHater

    I think that patio rendering looks awful.

    1. Kevin


  6. iowahawks

    I just say screw it and leave Wrigley. It has history but so did Yankee stadium and they built a new one. The people and businesses around Wrigley have more to lose then the cubs. No matter where they play if they put a good product on the field people will show up.

    1. TWC

      Totally. After the year-long, arduous process of getting their renovation plans through all the various city agencies, after finally getting City Council approval, NOW is the time to leave Wrigley.

      1. Ron

        Actually, not to be snarky TWC, the Cubs have made a comprise at nearly every turn. I think this ( actually a little more) working with the system is the only circomstance that the fan base would accept a move. I think all of this mess of the past year makes their case should it come to that.

        1. TWC

          Trouble is, Ron, that Joe Casual Fan hasn’t been following the Obsessive Renovation Watch, and Joe Casual Fan *is* the fanbase, not those of us who opine on Cubs blogs week in and week out. Sure, if Ricketts said “SCREW IT — we OUT!” and moved the team to Aurora or Schaumburg or Rosemont or some other dumb place the few folks in the MOVENOW camp would be thrilled, but Joe Casual Fan would have lost a significant (national) reason to go to a game — Wrigley Field itself.

          1. Ron

            TWC, I wish i could disagree with you on this one. No matter what Rickets would be the next Art Model (?) for moving. I am just glad that the Cubs are making every effort.

            1. Cubbie Blues

              Rickets wouldn’t be a very good model for art. :lol:

              1. iowahawks

                I like that they are trying everything to stay in Wrigley but at the end of the day I will choose a world series championship over Wrigley. They have never won a ws at Wrigley anyway. Bottom line I don’t care if they win at Wrigley, in rosemount, aurora, gurnee or on a little league diamond in schaumburg. ALL I WANT IS A WS TITTLE!!!!

                1. Chad

                  There is a wrigley replica in freeport, IL. Little Wrigley. Works for me.

        2. caryatid62

          The reason the Cubs have made a compromise at every turn is because that’s how the world works. This isn’t all that different from any other major construction project. Note the first word in Brett’s title: “Obsessive.” When you follow something obsessively, you tend to overstate its uniqueness and importance.

          There aren’t many construction jobs of this magnitude that would have an easier time of it. Welcome to the world of zoning, regulations and government. That’s how it goes.

          1. caryatid62

            btw-I just re-read my comment and realize it could be construed as saying that Brett overstates it’s uniqueness and importance. I’m referring to the comment section when I write that. Brett has absolutely been measured in all of his posts about this.

          2. Internet Random

            People also need to bear in mind that the Cubs almost certainly asked for more than they expected to get. This wasn’t their first negotiation.

            1. Scotti

              The problem is that when the HAVE made agreements Tunney has backed out at every turn and now the city is suggesting the Cubs accept, essentially, a handshake agreement.

  7. Dustin S

    I love Wrigley, but traffic/parking in and out of there is so insane that it really sucks a good part of the fun out of going to a game. About the 2 best options IMO are the DeVry lot/shuttle, or going extremely early and staying late to avoid most of it if you shell out the $ to park close. It definitely makes you appreciate the modern park highway/lot setups at away games. I would have to think attendance would be at least 25% higher if you picked up Wrigley and dropped it in the burbs next to a loop on/off ramp with a 10,000 car lot. I’m an old school purist, heck I have a 100 year-old house, but spending an hour every game just getting from the loop off-ramp to Wrigley does make the thought of relocating a little more appealing. The whiny rooftops and Tunney only help fuel it a little more.

    Maybe it’s all part of the marketing strategy to make you need a beer by the time you get there…

    1. Public Transportation Fan

      seriously, take the train, no parking hassles or costs, and you don’t have to worry about driving drunk. even if you have to drive to a train stop and park there, it’s a better alternative.

      1. On The Farm

        Your comment, for some unexplainable reason, seems biased to me.

      2. Scotti

        The train is not an option on a hot, muggy day when you’re lugging kids or the elderly around. It isn’t the best option for a single woman or two/three young girls. And the train is just nowhere near as good an option as good old actual parking would be for anyone coming from the burbs. ALL other major sport venues offer parking of some sort. The Cubs would love to offer parking but the city won’t allow them to do so.

        1. Chicagoan

          funny, because I know elderly people, parents of young kids, and single, young, attractive women who use the train daily, even in the middle of the summer. I also know several suburbanites who commute to the city on trains daily. Americans are too attached to cars – many people in big cities don’t even own cars and get around just fine. Less traffic congestion, less pollution…win, win, win

          1. Scotti

            First, if you’re a fan of “less traffic congestion” then you’re a fan of the Cubs moving out of the city, period. Second, ask those “attractive women” how often the’ve been groped all for the cause of “less pollution.” Third, how many elderly and parents of young children DON’T use the train (and how many WOULD’T if they didn’t have to)? Fourth, you are comparing a daily commute on the air-conditioned Metra full of business travelers going downtown to taking a crosstown bus or the El? Really?

            Look, “America” may be “addicted” to cars but that addiction helps the economy thrive. When it comes to going to a ballgame, dragging children (or the elderly) along in sweltering heat vs. taking your car is a no brainer. Letting your young daughter go to the park with her friends is no sweat when parking is available. If the other option is her taking the El and/or busses? Most often a parent is just going to say, No, let me drive you to the theater/mall/Chuck E Cheeses (and that’s the right choice to make, too)…

            I’ve lived in the City and I’ve lived in the burbs. I live in the burbs now and travel in FREQUENTLY. Once a week to DePaul is easy as pie. Downtown once a week is no sweat. But whether living in the City, or living in the burbs, getting to Wrigley is a HUGE hassle.

        2. milledad

          I come from the far burbs…. Michigan. Several times a year. I always take the train. I would think I can handle it, most people in the burbs can probably handle it too.

          1. Scotti

            What train do you take from Michigan all the way to Wrigley? No airplanes or cars involved in that commute? I’m sure that you could “handle it” without any planes or cars but they sure do make the commute easier don’t they? I’m betting that, without those planes or cars, you might take fewer trips. Even though you could “handle it” and all.

            There’s a huge difference between “can handle it” and “Hey, how about we have options like EVERY other major sports team in America.”

            1. MichiganGoat

              Amtrack will get you there and from there you can EL to Wrigley

              1. Danny Ballgame

                Amtrak to El is too easy. When I lived in St. Louis I would go up for the day to catch games and it was awesome. Drink cars on the train/ BYOB makes for a fun ride

                1. Scotti

                  That worked for you. That’s great that you had that option. How would you feel if someone cut that OPTION off for you? Told you that you HAD to drive to get to Wrigley? Or at least made that option far too cumbersome? That would be wrong, no?

                  1. Danny Ballgame

                    Who is cutting off the El and Amtrak?

                    1. Scotti

                      No one. Who is cutting off parking (i.e. CARS) at Wrigley? Alderman Tunney. Why? Because a parking garage next to the park (triangle building) would bring traffic to the Cubs own clubs IN Wrigley–both in season and out–and not help the bars in the area (or the restaurants he is part owner of).

              2. Scotti

                “Amtrack will get you there and from there you can EL to Wrigley”

                Sure it WILL and you CAN. That isn’t the issue. The issue is does he? Would he be fine with that? Would it fit his schedule and does he have the OPTION? Suggesting that everyone should take the train is as silly as suggesting that everyone should take a car. It MIGHT work for him. Does it work for everyone? No, so don’t limit their options. I’m for more families and more elderly going to games. They would, if there was convenient parking.

                1. TSB

                  Come on Suburbanites, cut the BS. It’s not the drive that bugs you, try driving to a 7:00pm game in some ‘burb with rush hour traffic going in your direction. No, what you worry about is being stopped at a red light and being forced to see people you don’t want to see. And horrors of horrors, you might on the way walking to the gate, you might have to interact with them. Who are these people? Put it this way: you don’t mind them playing on the field or throwing you a bag of peanuts, but you wouldn’t want them in your neighborhood or in the case of the ballpark, sitting next to you.

                  1. Chris

                    tsb Are you angry because I never stopped and visited Cabrini Green when I lived in the burbs.

                  2. frank

                    And your evidence for this blanket statement accusing all suburbanites of racism is what?

                  3. Scotti

                    “No, what you worry about is being stopped at a red light and being forced to see people you don’t want to see. ”

                    Boy howdy, are the idiots out today. TSB, your filth is disgusting. Accusing people of racism WITHOUT even knowing them is abhorrent.

                    THIS suburbanite drives into the city 2-3 times per week (and has no problems doing so). THIS suburbanite keeps dollars bills in his driver-side door with the express purpose of handing them to panhandlers on the drive in.

                    Re. driving in poor traffic: Hell, I’m thinking about joining a health club downtown. That would add another 3 times per week. I DON’T mind the drive at all–with, or against, traffic. I DO mind getting my car towed if I take an hour to get back to the parking lot. That ONLY happens at Wrigley and not DePaul, Northwestern or anywhere else that I go in the city.

                2. Danny Ballgame

                  Why wouldn’t you have the “OPTION”, as you put it, to take the train? I had the OPTION to drive and chose to train it. Easy, cheap, fun, booze, weirdos, the full 9

                  1. Scotti

                    Being limited to ONE option is not exactly an “option.” Which option do you prefer, yellow cheese or yellow cheese? And parking in and around Wrigley is not a realistic option for many, many Cubs fans.

            2. cubs2003

              If you have to drive, it’s not THAT hard to find parking if you’re willing to walk 7 or 8 blocks. Especially for a day game. I usually take the CTA or bike, but it’s never taken me more than 15 minutes to find parking out by Ashland.

              1. Scotti

                Willing and able to walk 7-8 blocks (or bike) are two different things for a multitude of people. Families with small children, the elderly, the disabled all might be “willing” but not able. Think outside of your own personal experiences and think of the many different types of Cub fans out there.

                Re. finding parking. Even though I don’t visit the bars after the game I like to dawdle and take in the experience. I’ve had my car towed from a Wrigleyville parking lot twice. Over $300 (plus cab fare, plus valuable hours getting the damn thing back) each time. No thanks. Major scam.

  8. Scott

    Take the train.

  9. aCubsFan

    It’s August 1st and no certainty. It’s almost impossible to put a shove in the ground to start renovating this fall/winter.

  10. Chris

    Chicago Trib headline (expect few fresh faces in 2014) Maybe so.


    So the Cubs are not going to “turn one shovel” until all this stuff is worked out. Does anyone have an interpretation for that statement? It sounds, to me, as though they have relocation contingency plans. I would not be surprised to hear that they are looking at other locations… not officially, but just kinda lookin’ around… for fun! You know!

    Anyone getting the same feeling?

    1. Cubbie Blues

      No, it’s not “turn one shovel” it’s “order one shovel”. Meaning, they aren’t going to order any materials until they get assurances from the rooftops. They are withholding a $500M project from the city until everything lines into place.

      1. aCubsFan

        The assurances aren’t only from the RTOs but also from the city and alderman that if they accept the 10 year signage moratorium they’ll get to run their business as their business.

  12. Jed Jam Band

    This is the most bizarre public battle over a stadium that I can ever remember. I mean, how many teams have royally screwed the public by asking for taxpayer money for a new stadium, citing that it will increase revenue and attendance? And then, of course, it comes out meh and the business only picks up a little bit. The Cubs are asking to use half a billion dollars of their OWN MONEY to renovate the stadium of their business so that falling debris don’t kill people and so that they have enough revenue to pay players and staff in the future. Also, renovating Wrigley so the Cubs don’t have to move is advantageous to every business in that neighborhood, so, you’d think they would want this to happen.

  13. dshea

    Wouldn’t the sign at the back of the patio block the view from the 2nd and third floors of the buildings on Sheffield?

    1. aCubsFan

      I had the same thought, but you have to realize in those buildings there aren’t any apartments, and from experience the 2nd and 3rd floors can’t see into Wrigley anyway. All you see is the outside of the stadium.

      The article I read on Sunday in the Tribune said the neighborhood doesn’t want it because the party deck would darken the neighborhood.

  14. Dan

    I still think the cubs should move into a new ballpark where they can do whatever they want and however they want whenever they want and not have to worry about stupid people in the surrounding area complaining. Let the cubs run there business! I don’t see the neighborhood asking bars and restraints to close an hour or so earlier because it will disrupt the life of the neighborhood they don’t tell other businesses how to run so how do they get off telling the cubs how to run theirs? The cubs need to move to a different part of town period so they can add as many signs video boards adds and play as many night games as they wish just like every other team in MLB

    1. TWC

      You really have no idea how land use and urban planning work, do you? There is, literally, nowhere in this country that the team could put in ‘a new ballpark where they can do whatever they want and however they want whenever they want and not have to worry about stupid people in the surrounding area complaining”. Literally nowhere.

      1. Jono

        not literally, but it works as hyperbole.

      2. Scotti

        While “whatever they want” doesn’t ring true, MOST of what they want does ring true for other major cities and the burbs. The city of Chicago is onerous for most business. It is absolutely obscene for the Cubs. The cubs do all of the heavy lifting in that area–they bring the traffic, direct that traffic, police it, clean up after it, etc.–and literally hundreds of businesses leach off of their efforts without lifting a pinky.

    2. Jono

      From a fan’s perspective, anything to win. If moving helps them sustain higher payrolls, than i’d be all for it (that’s a big “if”, though). From an owner’s perspective, I’d move simply from the principle of controlling my own property

      1. TWC

        “From an owner’s perspective, I’d move simply from the principle of controlling my own property”

        Great principle to have. But it’s not reality.

        1. Jono

          not sure what you mean. Ricketts would have way more control over his property if he moved the team anywhere else

        2. Scotti

          Control over your own business in Chicago? Not so much. Control over your business in any of the burbs mentioned? Absolutely. And Chicago is the outlier here. The other major cities know how to treat businesses, by and large.

          1. Jono


          2. Tommy (TC)

            even the suburbs have very strict ordinances regarding pretty much everything a baseball stadium would do. Noise levels are a big one (Kane County can’t set off fireworks after 10 PM, for example), and that would affect where you could put a stadium. People didn’t move to a suburb to have to deal with 40,000 people cheering at 10 pm in the middle of May, and you can bet there would be a lot of conflict over that issue. So put it near the poor people, right? Well, then the organizations that deal with environmental racism get upset (and rightfully so).

            Most suburbs close enough to the city to be desirable also have very little capacity for a giant ballpark and stadium, so finding that space may invlove the razing of houses, purchasing land from local businesses, industry, or forest preserve. This would also require a huge, public fight. And then you have to start looking at how the local area could handle the increased traffic bursts. I work with a traffic consulting firm, and can tell you that very, very few roads in the areas we’d be considering could handle the bursts of traffic during rush hour before the game and as the whole stadium let out. A projected increase of 10,000 cars per day, 30 years in the future, gets IDOT and others freaked out (again, rightfully so) enough to spend tens of millions upgrading those roads. An immediate increase of 12-15k vehicles would overtax the local infrastructure to the point of being worthless on game day.

            This has been two mintues of what immediately came to mind thinking of problems with a stadium in the burbs, so an in-depth look would probably be veyr, very long. But the short version is: there is no such thing as doing whatever you want with your land. In a civilized society, you have to be conscientious of those around you, it’s why every bit of the land in this country is regulated and controlled to avoid impacts to those around it.

            1. Jono

              Of course there are some restrictions wherever you go. No where has no laws

            2. Barry Clifton

              Thank you.

              1. Barry Clifton

                Thank you directed to Tommy.

            3. Tommy (TC)

              *ballpark and parking lot

            4. Mr. B. Patient

              It’s a miracle there are 30 stadiums then. EVERYTHING can be worked out. There is a ton of open property in the Chicagoland area, near expressways, that could be used.

              Finding a space for a ballpark is not the problem with moving. The perceived loss of ticket sales is.

              1. Tommy (TC)

                all of it gets worked out, but that’s the point. I was responding to the notion that they should just go build somewhere where they could do whatever, which is a fantasy. You’d be dealing with all the same problems AND moving to an area which may or may not be capable of handling the traffic headed to it. The stadium where the Dolphins play was built on the same idea as yours – near expressways, open land, etc, but it was very poor for the Marlins because it was very impossible to get to in rush-hour traffic

                1. Scotti

                  “You’d be dealing with all the same problems…”

                  The most untrue statement ever made on this site (and that is saying something).

                  1. Tommy (TC)

                    Come to my office and look at the paperwork involved in planning a 4,000 foot stretch of road improvement near a historic district, and you’d know I speak the truth. Planning something as large as a baseball stadium requires a ton of work. Would they be the exact same problems? Obviously not but you shoudl know from reading what I wrote that I didn’t mean “the exact same problems”, but rather that they’d be dealing with the same quantity and annoyance anywhere

                    1. Scotti

                      “…they’d be dealing with the same quantity and annoyance anywhere”.

                      This is simply not true. The WHITE SOX have nothing like the hassles the Cubs have. The BEARS have nothing like the hassles the Cubs have. The BULLS have nothing like the hassles the Cubs have. YOU NAME THE PROFESSIONAL TEAM have nothing like the hassles the Cubs have.

                      PERIOD. End of story. Can’t set off fireworks after 10pm? Give me a break. The Cubs can’t even light their field for 67% of their games.

                    2. Danny Ballgame

                      Fenway has the same issues

                    3. Scotti

                      “Fenway has the same issues”

                      No, it doesn’t. Not even close. The Red Sox have a great partner in the city of Boston. Boston has been very receptive to Yawkey Way and all of the ways the team has improved their park. The team has been improving Fenway Park since 2002 without any Boston alderman hassling them:


            5. Scotti

              “This has been two mintues of what immediately came to mind …”

              Some of us have given this more than two minutes of our thought, Tommy. For instance…

              Residential areas/poor people… Believe it or not, the burbs have areas that are neither residential nor where poor people reside. The OFFER from Rosemont was one such area. Schaumburg has acres and acres of non-residential area. My personal favorite site is currently occupied by a business that is located ON the Metra line, is adjacent a major highway, is on a major suburban rural route and already has dealt with crowds up to 40,000 (though its current business is nowhere near that now).

              IDOT… Cub traffic neither arrives, nor departs, in unison. Further, a good portion of Cub traffic arrives from out of town. Any site the Cubs use will include a hotel and many, many club and restaurant options (both within the complex and in the burb itself). Cub fans like to show up early and stay late. Providing actual parking will allow for that even more. Offering discounted, or even free, parking for those who come early (and who will, undoubtedly, visit the various businesses that the Cubs own) is an easy way to limit any traffic concerns. Cub fans released from the straightjacket of having to leave the park right away (or get your car towed) would now be able to linger at their leisure. At most, half of the vehicles necessary would be arriving and leaving on time. And, with more suburban traffic, you get more families coming to your games meaning more fans in fewer cars.

              “Kane County can’t set off fireworks after 10 PM…”

              First, and foremost, can the Cubs set off FIREWORKS? EVER?

              Second, but also important, does Kane County have a video board? Can Kane County have as many, or few, night games as they want? Does Kane County have to build a million dollar park as a bribe in order to get permission to invest half a billion in their community? Does Kane County HAVE to give to local charities? Does Kane County have to let their neighbors sell tickets to their games (or be forced into a contract with them)? Is Kane County limited in how many other events than just baseball that they can have? Can Kane County raise their outfield wall if they want? Can Kane County add ads inside their building if they want? If Kane County wanted to invest millions in building a hotel and restaurants would it take five or more years to get approval (well, a handshake)?

              Anyone who doesn’t see that the City screws the Cubs any chance it gets is blind. Even with a “Cub fan” as mayor, the DNA of that town is such that they START with the Cubs bound and shackled and then move on to the Cubs compromising from there.

              “In a civilized society, you have to be conscientious of those around you…”

              And the Cubs have not proposed a damn thing that isn’t conscientious of those around them. Not a single thing. The Cubs have, for decades, bent over backwards for neighbors who, by and large, are Johnny Come Latelys to the neighborhood.

      2. Jono

        *then, not than. I hate that

  15. Jono

    This seems so obvious that I’m sure it’s already been discussed, but what about raising the bleachers 5ft and putting in a long video board between the ivy wall and the bleachers? Many other ball parks seem to have something like that, and I couldn’t imagen that 5ft getting in the way of the rooftops’ views. That would add a ton of ad area.

    1. Scotti

      That would significantly block all 16 rooftops.

      1. Jono

        ah, gotcha

      2. On The Farm

        That’s exactly why they should do it

        1. Scotti


  16. James Gillmeister

    I hate to say it but Rosemont makes a ton of sense. Major highway access, a blue line stop within walking distance, and a notoriously business friendly environment.

    1. Tommy (TC)

      just because there are major highways running *through* rosemont doesn’t mean that there’s infrastructure to handle a baseball stadium crowd getting off those highways and going *through* rosemont. Also, have you ever been through Rosemont betweent the hours of 2 pm and 6:30 pm on a weekday? It’s gridlock on the highways. Congestion aside, where would you put an MLB sized stadium in Rosemont? there’s really very little room there that isn’t currently in use

      1. James Gillmeister

        I thought so too, then I saw a map detailing the proposed site, west of 294 at the Balmoral exit, easy off, easy on. The wast side was near Mannheim, so again easy traffic access. The site had plenty of room to build parking, plus there is lots of parking a short walk over 294. I was fixated on a site east of 294, but the proposed site made a lot of sense.

        BTW, traffic in Rosemont near game time can’t be worse than trying to get off the Lake Shore Drive or negotiating Addison

        1. Tommy (TC)

          The Balmoral ramps only allow exits from the southbound lanes and entrances onto southbound 294 lanes. not all traffic is coming from there, so a lot would be funnelled through the local roads in Rosemont, which would be nowhere near sufficient for that kind of capacity. I’m not sure where that parking across 294 is that you’re talking about, but most of what I think you’re talking about is used for the buildings already there. Also, the site (I think) you’re talking about has a runway aimed at it, so I hope they said the stadium was subterranean, and I hope you like the loudest jset noises possible.

          And just because the traffic there now isn’t the worst thing ever doesn’t mean the roads have the capacity to handle an additional 12-15k cars in a 1.5 hour span. The type of construction needed to make that possible would costs huge, huge sums of money.

          1. Scotti

            Any NEW site the Cubs build would be 1-1.5 BILLION dollars. When teams lay out that kind of money states/munis bend over backwards to make it happen. Adding on/off ramps and/or an extra lane is A ) probably long overdue in these areas anyway, B ) a politician’s wet dream and C ) simply the cost of doing business.

            1. TWC

              Oh, so it’s okay for adding a highway lane to be “simply the cost of doing business”, but moving the proposed jumbotron back, a moratorium on additional signage, and agreeing to delay consideration of a road-spanning pedestrian bridge is *not* “simply the cost of doing business”? I suppose we all must draw our line somewhere, but you’re splitting those hairs miiiiighty finely.

              All in all, you’ve really managed to get your shorts in a bundle fretting about something that’s *never going to happen*. It’s amazing that the Ricketts family never gave a move to the suburbs the consideration that you have. Those fools.

              1. Scotti

                All in all, you’ve really managed to get your shorts in a bundle fretting about MY opinion regarding this. Hmmm. Thanks for trying to diagnose me, doc. What are your fees?

                “It’s amazing that the Ricketts family never gave a move to the suburbs the consideration that you have.”

                Uh, the Cubs have not signed off on anything, have they? I’m certain that they have given it WAY more “consideration” than I have. Heh, I’ve never contacted a number of burbs and they have. They will ultimately do what they believe is right for them. They certainly haven’t rolled over as many would have (and as the Tribune has in the past).

              2. Scotti

                “Oh, so it’s okay for adding a highway lane to be “simply the cost of doing business…”

                Adding a lane would be good business for the city/municipality that would theoretically land the Cubs. The lane would be a one-time cost. The benefits to one of these cities (Chicago included) is immeasurably greater and pays for itself year after year. There is a reason that Rahm “got on board” when the issue of the Cubs moving came up.

                “…but moving the proposed jumbotron back, a moratorium on additional signage, and agreeing to delay consideration of a road-spanning pedestrian bridge is *not* “simply the cost of doing business”?”

                Yes, no, no. Moving the video board is part of doing business just as much as coughing up the parking on Waveland to move it back is. I.e. if the city is going to mess with the Cubs RIGHT to have a video board in their park then the city needs to make it work (hence, Waveland loses some parking).

                A moratorium on a business’s ads? Huh? This makes sense, how? Don’t you want your businesses doing well? When they do well they add employees and re-invest in the business. There has to be a very good reason for stopping a business from making money and that good reason is missing here. The Cubs have a RIGHT to place ads in and around their stadium just like every other major sports team in America.

                Delaying “consideration of a road-spanning pedestrian bridge” would be stupid for the Cubs to sign off on. Sure, we’ll consider it later on “good faith.” Wink, wink. Uh, what good faith has the city/alderman shown in this process? None. The bridge is obviously good for foot traffic/safety and the neighborhood but the bars don’t like it. Sooooo, you don’t like the road-spanning pedestrian bridge on Clark then give the Cubs the patio on Sheffield originally suggested by the rooftops. THAT is the price of doing business. The Cubs wouldn’t need ANY bridge if they were allowed to run the rest of their business the way other businesses are.

                i I suppose we all must draw our line somewhere, but you’re splitting those hairs miiiiighty finely.

                Mighty finely? Treat the Cubs like other cities treat their teams? Treat the Cubs like THIS city treats its OTHER teams. Period. That’s no fine line. That’s a BOLD line.

                1. Scotti

                  * i I suppose

                  Old HTML habits die hard… “I suppose…”

      2. BT

        all of those are good points, but to play Devil’s advocate, if they moved to Rosemont, there would be no reason for them to play any day games, so you don’t need to drive through Rosemont between 2 and 6:30.

        1. Tommy (TC)

          If you wanted to get to a 7:00 game on time, you’d be dealing with the effects of that traffic, which cascade throughout the interstate system in Chicago

          1. Scotti

            Like getting to a Cubs game now doesn’t mean getting through heavy traffic?

            1. Scott

              Not if you take the train.

              1. Scotti

                For many, “taking the train” involves driving TO the train, paying for parking, taking the train (and paying for it), taking a bus (and paying for it) and either catching another bus or the El. Not the kind of thing a family with little children or the elderly or the disabled or just someone who doesn’t have a lot of time on their hands, cherishes (and much, more expensive than paying for parking one car at the ballpark). I’m glad it works for you. There are MANY that it doesn’t work for.

    2. Danimal8

      Sure, but I am not going to a baseball game in Rosemont.

  17. James Gillmeister

    Last night, I was watching the WSox game while waiting for the Cubs to start. The thought occurred to me that Wrigley Field must be one of the most expansive parks in the majors. All the new ones were built with with line about 320-330 ft. Wy not move the fences in, and move the RF sign in a bit as well, so it doesn’t cut the rooftop site lines.

    1. Scotti

      Wrigley is actually very small. The wells in RF and LF make it deeper down the lines but it is short to left and right center (where the signs go). The brick and ivy out there is one of the few things that are actually covered under the landmark agreement. They can’t be moved.

      Regardless, moving the signs IN would cut OFF the views and that is why the rooftops proposed that the Cubs build the patio over the street in right so the sign can be moved BACK (they just didn’t propose the walkway the Cubs want to attach).

  18. Greenroom

    totally off topic…but a Surfline –surf forecast ad on Bleacher Nation! All is right in the universe. Go Cubs~

    1. Cubbie Blues

      Most of the ads are personalized and based off your search history and what is being discussed on the pages.

      1. Greenroom

        oh, ok thanks. I had no idea. Definitely in my favorites. I felt like the universe was speaking to me for a moment… surfing and the Cubs.

  19. Obsessive Wrigley Renovation Watch: Delays, Disputes, and Uncertainty | Bleacher Nation | Chicago Cubs News, Rumors, and Commentary

    […] closer to the lower-portion of the rooftop buildings, thus eliminating any sightline obstructions. The Cubs countered with a larger patio that would cover much of that block of Sheffield (as a way to make up for the bridge they’d wanted over Clark, but lost in the public approval […]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.