Jump to content





Bleacher Nation is on Facebook, and you should totally "Like" us:
 


Bleacher Nation is also on Twitter, and you should totally follow us:




Upcoming Calendar Events

There are no forthcoming calendar events

Today's birthdays

No members are celebrating a birthday today

Photo

Rosemont


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#16 hansman1982

hansman1982

    King Regent of The Calendar Trivia Empire

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,944 posts
  • Twitter:JoeHansman
  • LocationDes Moines, IA

Posted 26 March 2013 - 09:53 AM






The stadium was half-empty for a good portion of last year.

Na, it was twice as big as it needed to be.


So you're saying we need to build a 75,000 seat stadium in Aurora? Become the Aurora WAAAAAAAAAAAYNES?

That would be awesome. Blackouts every game. Oh, wait, I live in Bloomington, IN. I am already blacked out since I should be able to get off work and make it to a 3:05 game.


Hey, living in Des Moines, I can perform mitosis and attend a game in Minneapolis, Kansas City, St. Louis, 2 in Chicago and Milwaukee whenever I so choose.

Now that would cost a lot of coin. Do you go for the day or make a weekend out of it.


We we (there are 97 of me now) are segmented into 6 groups. The Cubs group is the highest ranking with the White Sox/Cardinals groups being for the screw ups (errors in cell division happen). Within these groups we rotate between work and game attendance, typically 3 weeks work, 1 week at the ballpark.

I, of course, never work and am the King of my minions. I have 1 guy dedicated to hamburger procurement and cooking.

#17 Robbo

Robbo

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 116 posts
  • LocationChicago, IL

Posted 26 March 2013 - 06:28 PM

The stadium was half-empty for a good portion of last year.

Cubs ticket sales, historically, have been closely tied to contention. They may get a bump each year from it being in Wrigley but to say that without Wrigley there wouldn't be anyone there, is off.

At the end of the day, the Cubs still have a top-3 fan base in the nation. The best way to keep it there is to contend and continue mass distribution of the Cubs brand.


Cubs had one of the worst seasons in team history last year and still sold 2.9 million tickets. That was the first season since '03 that the annual ticket sales dipped below 3 million sold. Only 5 winning seasons and only 3 playoff appearances in the past 10 years yet still top ten club in ticket sales year after year. Agreed that best way to sell tickets is to contend, but that's easier to suggest than it is to produce. If past 10 seasons are any indication they don't need to win to sell tickets at Wrigley...although they will need to win to sell in the burbs long term.

#18 Luke

Luke

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,086 posts
  • Twitter:@ltblaize
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 26 March 2013 - 07:16 PM

Just another cookie cutter park in the burbs.


I don't understand this line of thinking. Why would any new location for the Cubs automatically be a cookie cutter stadium in a dull neighborhood that no one would ever want to go to?

I suppose they could be stupid enough to put 0 effort into replacing one of the most storied buildings in America, but I have a hard time believing that would happen. There is no reason they could not recreate a large percentage of the Wrigleyville draw in a new location. Nothing about moving out of the City mandates that they suddenly be dull, dry, and boring.

Though it does sound like Rosemont is not the place to attempt it. That only leaves the entirety of the rest of the Chicagoland area in consideration. Surely somewhere there is a plot ground large enough near a neighborhood active enough to merit consideration.

#19 Robbo

Robbo

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 116 posts
  • LocationChicago, IL

Posted 27 March 2013 - 07:57 AM


Just another cookie cutter park in the burbs.


I don't understand this line of thinking. Why would any new location for the Cubs automatically be a cookie cutter stadium in a dull neighborhood that no one would ever want to go to?

I suppose they could be stupid enough to put 0 effort into replacing one of the most storied buildings in America, but I have a hard time believing that would happen. There is no reason they could not recreate a large percentage of the Wrigleyville draw in a new location. Nothing about moving out of the City mandates that they suddenly be dull, dry, and boring.

Though it does sound like Rosemont is not the place to attempt it. That only leaves the entirety of the rest of the Chicagoland area in consideration. Surely somewhere there is a plot ground large enough near a neighborhood active enough to merit consideration.


That statement was in relation to the proposed plot in Rosemont which is sandwiched between a highway and office buildings. Rosemont only has about 4,000 residents and not many live anywhere close to the business district where the park is being proposed.

To your point, I would agree you could potentially build a unique park in a burb somewhere, but MLB as a whole is trending in the exact opposite direction and building new parks in downtown areas instead of suburbs. Cubs would be taking on a significant risk to move out of Wrigley in favor of the suburbs.

#20 Luke

Luke

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,086 posts
  • Twitter:@ltblaize
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 27 March 2013 - 05:31 PM

Publicly financed stadiums are moving downtown, but that often is part of a downtown neighborhood revitalization project. That's part of what cities try to get back in exchange for their incentive package. Because of that, I'm not sure we can say for sure that downtown stadiums are financially preferred.

I really would like to see a study, though. I can see pros going in either direction, provided the stadium is done right.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Bleacher Nation is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago National League Ballclub (that's the Cubs).