On what looks like it was a beautiful Saturday in Chicago, David took these photos in and around Wrigley Field:
The new restaurant/bar outside Wrigley on Addison
Almost ready for baseball!
Checking the flagpoles on the Wrigley roof
All photos by David Sameshima
0 recs | 59 comments
Gosh I can't wait!
Those flag poles will soon be hanging W’s!! I’m mad because I’m going to miss Wednesdays game. I think I’ll DVR it though.
wrigleyrocker12 - April 4, 2009
all excited because my new house has a flag pole
just ordered a W flag of my very own. Let the W flag fly from sea to shining sea!
Emelie - April 5, 2009
Excellent!
With Wrigley Field representin’ Illinois and now you representin’ Alaska, that’s two states down, 48 to go.
What say you, BCB? How many states – heck, let’s go with countries too – can we get some W flag representin’ going on this year when the Cubs win?
ballhawk - April 5, 2009
OK, I'll
order a W flag so Iowa will be taken care of.
sue369 - April 5, 2009
Just like last year
I have New Mexico covered — The “W” flag will fly proudly.
StevenABQ - April 5, 2009
That restaurant looks like it's an eyesour.
It doesn’t look like it blends in at all.
calicubfan - April 4, 2009
It looks like a pancake house
Awful looking attached to a ballpark. But I don’t think the Cubs care so long as it is another revenue maker. I for one can’t wait until Tom Ricketts takes over and puts an end to some of this silliness. Crane Kenney should be shot for approving such an addition.
BLou - April 5, 2009
Overreaction.
How do you know Tom Ricketts wouldn’t have done exactly the same thing? Isn’t more revenue exactly what this team wants and needs?
Al Yellon - April 5, 2009
So you think Ricketts didn't have a say in this?
The guy just plunked down $900M. Okay so it’s not final yet, but I think before someone goes and adds another room onto his new house, he’s going to be consulted on the matter.
ballhawk - April 5, 2009
Yeah, That's It. Let's Shoot Him.
We get it already, you’re mas macho. Whoop-dee-do.
BeerCub - April 5, 2009
Is that stucco?
I’m reminded of a really bad night at a La Quinta Inn.
roscoevillage - April 4, 2009
good news and bad news...
Good News: Just like the bleacher expansion, once again the Cubs have done a good job of “blending in” a new addition to Wrigley with its immediate surrounding area, i.e the exterior concrete and stucco.
Bad News: The immediate surrounding area was pretty ugly to begin with. This sure doesn’t help.
ballhawk - April 4, 2009
Let's hope they get rid of the concrete panels when they finally do renovate Wrigley.
Al Yellon - April 4, 2009
Call me crazy...
Call me crazy but the new restaurant addition doesn’t fit in. And now Big Z wants a new ballpark, whats going on here? Pretty soon all the classic parks will be filled with computers, high tech bathrooms and ads.
Not Wrigley, the list of classic parks is looking bare already.
baggs - April 4, 2009
you're not crazy. that is a replica of del boca vista's front entryway
Morty Sienfeld approves.
I’ll still tie one on there though.
Just win baby!
scottsdalecubs - April 5, 2009
Sort of ironic, with the club strong-arming Mesa with threats to flee
to Florida. We all know that the spring training deal contracts were all cut with a handhsake in past years. If you don’t think the owners are fetching a profit at our expense then you haven’t been paying attention. Ricketts acquire, mentions of upgrades to Ho Ho Kam or “we’ll move” are fed to local lackeys, and here we go. Mesa is broke. Gun to Head. And I don’t give a shit how many games that kid spent in the bleachers, if he rips the cubs out of Arizona for dollars (I don’t think he has the balls), I will temper my enthusiasm for the team based on lack of direction of ownership.
I’ll call his bluff. People are fleeing Florida in busloads – who the hell would want to go down there and pay $92.00 for a ticket to a ST game (Yankee fans are forgiven).?
scottsdalecubs - April 5, 2009
People are paying $90 for a ticket to Dodger ST games.
But that’s not the point. I don’t think there’s a “fix it or else” ultimatum given for moving out of Mesa — I suspect the negotiations behind the scenes are friendlier than that. The bottom line is, we just don’t know, and won’t until some kind of deal is made (which I believe will be done).
Al Yellon - April 5, 2009
crazy
KC in OK - April 5, 2009
Cubs need a new ballpark
Been going to Wrigley since 1977, but on this one I’ll side with Carlos Zambrano. Cubs need a state-of-the-art new ballpark that incorporates those elements of Wrigley that are important. I for one do not see how the Cubs will ever be able to “retro-fit” Wrigley the right way. The lockerrooms are a joke, the space for indoor batting cages and the like non-existent, the concourses and bathrooms are decades out of date, the bullpens are jammed onto the field and the exterior of the ballpark hideous looking.
The new restaurant looks like a stucco pancake house that doesn’t at all fit in with the wondrous concrete panel look of Wrigley.
I’m serious. Find some old industrial property adjacent to the Kennedy and build a brand new ballpark. Wrigley can remain standing as a baseball museum and a facility for use by the city of Chicago. If not a ballpark near the Kennedy, then build something adjacent to Arlington Park Racecourse. The property is available to build a ballpark and the highway, parking and train infrastructure is already in place.
BLou - April 5, 2009
Who's going to pay for that?
Al Yellon - April 5, 2009
New ballparks abound in baseball...
When the economic climate is better there are ways to build a new ballpark. A legitimate remodel of Wrigley is going to cost $400 million plus anyways.
BLou - April 5, 2009
Just wait until...
…you hear the name of the new restaurant. If you don’t like Bud Light Bleachers, well, lets just say you won’t be happy.
cubsscoop - April 5, 2009
Well...
we’re waiting.
Goodie1969 - April 5, 2009
"The White Elephant"?
Clutche - April 5, 2009
"Johnny Ricketts"?
Clutche - April 5, 2009
LOL
BeerCub - April 5, 2009
I think that a big dose of reality needs to be injected into this situation. It's obvious that
Wrigley will not last forever. Wrigley is not the White House or the Sistine Chapel. The stresses and wear and tear that a structure like Wrigley have seen have obviously taken a toll. Nothing last forever and a plan needs to be put in place for the eventual replacement of the grand old lady. The charm and appeal of Wrigley are certainly unique and in a perfect world it would be nice to see it last many more years, but physics cannot be overcome by wishes and wants.
Yes, the economic climate is bad now, but history tells us that it won’t last this way. If New York can build two new ballparks, can’t a city like Chicago find a way to build one? Old charm and uniqueness are admirable qualities, but modern amemities make the experience of watching a game much nicer. The modern baseball fan is demanding the amenities as the cost of watching the game in person rises. These facts cannot be disputed and a plan needs to be put in place for the eventual replacement of Wrigley.
The single fact that cannot be ignored is that the revenue streams that drive the Cubs as an organization are just about streched to the limit. The constant battle of trying to convince the neighbood to allow non-basball events to be held at Wrigley is getting tiresome, but the fact remains that the organization cannot exists in it’s present form without those events. Crane Kenny has stated that fact on many occasions.
If the Cubs want to continue to compete on the level of other major market teams, a replacement of Wrigley must be on the table. The revenue that a structure like Yankee Stadium can generate cannot be ignored. The city of Chicago and the state of Illinois cannot afford to thumb their noses at the Cubs and claim that it cannot afford to participate in the eventual replacement of Wrigley. The stakes are too high and the parties involved are too well intertwined. If the Cubs want to charge the ticket prices that they need and generate the revenue that comes with suites and corporate contributions, a new facility must be in the offing.
The parties involved can continue to sit back and point fingers, but time will force a decision upon this situation. Unfortunately, the Chicago way of doing business will present some major stumbling blocks to a solution. That, coupled with the desire to keep Wrigley and the Cubs frozen in time will cause some major consternation. But as surely as the sun rises tomorrow, a solution to this current situation must be sought. The alternative is to sit and fiddle while Rome continues to crumble on top of our collective heads.
willie mays hayes' gloves - April 5, 2009
The Cell would be one new park Chicago can claim
Clutche - April 5, 2009
Rec'd.
Couldn’t have said it better.
Goodie1969 - April 5, 2009
I just don't see it.
With the parking lot that could hold the triangle building, a complete re-build of the grandstand, re-work of the concourse and incorporating luxury boxes with room and that don’t obstruct the view, the Cubs can utilize the money already spent re-building the bleachers.
With a plan similar to this they satisfy those of us that want to retain the current building while satisfying those wanting modern amenities.
Any argument to blow it up and build elsewhere in the middle of a parking lot is completely lost on me.
N Oakley - April 5, 2009
It can't last forever. Old Yankee stadium was completely remodled in 1976 and now it will be
completely demolished. Wrigley is made of cement, steel and bricks and it will eventually come down. We can pine for the grand old park all we want, but do we really believe the laws of physics will cease to exist just be cause we want them to? I am in love with the old park as much as anyone and would like to see it last forever, but I am also a realist. You can’t keep rewoking a century old structue. Eventually, it will crumble from it’s base.
It’s easy to sit back and say “It just can’t be done, there’s now way to find a place to build a park that satisfies everyone.”, but that attitude is not based in reality. Of course concessions will have to be made and not everyone will be happy, but the fact is, this structure cannot last until the end of time. A serious discussion needs to be started now for the eventually replacement of Wrigley. Before someone with the authority steps in and says “You can’t use this facility anymore.”
The argument of building elsewhere may be lost on you, but you have to factor reality into the situation. There are more factors involved than wanting to keep the old building because it’s nice or quaint. This is 2009 and the fate of the ballpark needs to be discussed with that fact in mind.
willie mays hayes' gloves - April 5, 2009
Wrigley will last forever...
Cement(concrete actually), steel, and bricks can last forever if properly taken care of. Wrigley will not crumble to the ground, your premise that “…it will crumble from it’s base.” is flawed. There will need to be some renovating, mostly to bring the park’s ameneties up to date. As long as the steel is painted, the concrete is patched, and the bricks tuckpointed every so often Wrigley could last indefinately. It’s going to take a commitment from the new ownership to bring the park into the 21st century and stay diligent with the maintenance.
Imtrejo - April 5, 2009
Bull. Your premise assumes that the structure has been properly maintained throughout
t’s life and no one can say that. The only way to be sure that the structure is completly safe would be to x-ray all of the critical load points in the stucture to make sure that there is integrity throughout the material and no one is going to do that. This is not a small one-story building we are talking about. This is a huge structure that is subjected to stress forces that can collapse under it’s own weight. If your premise about Wrigley lasting forever were true, no stadium would ever be torn down. The basic problem is that the stucture has been modified from it’s original form. Pieces and parts have been added and taken away so that the park is nothing like it’s original form. Any time you do that, you run the risk of structural failure. By the way I, do know what I am talking about. I am an engineer by trade and I am familiar with the forces and stresses a stucture like Wrigley experiences over the years.
willie mays hayes' gloves - April 5, 2009
Actually, the structure HAS been well maintained...
… despite the well-known concrete chunks from 2004 — which have not been repeated.
Much of the lower deck dates from 1968 or later. The bleachers are new. Only the upper deck needs to be replaced.
Fenway Park has had much of the same sort of work done to it and it will last for decades to come.
Al Yellon - April 5, 2009
I am not saying that it has not been maintained, only that there is a certain amount of risk when
relying on a structure as old as Wrigley to be completely safe. The park may be sound as a dollar, but most engineers will tell you that the safety factor drop off to unacceptable levels when a stucture as old as Wrigley is dpended upon to last as long as it has.
Mind you, I am not saying the structure itself is unsafe. I am only saying that as the structure continues to age, the risk that accompany maintaining it are great.
willie mays hayes' gloves - April 6, 2009
Fenway is older than Wrigley.
So why is Fenway safe and Wrigley not?
Al Yellon - April 6, 2009
They both may be completely safe. My only point is that as
these structures get older, the safety factors involved go down. I am not saying that either Fenway or Wrigley will fall down. My original point is the the discussion of replacing the fiacility should move forward. These things always take time and with Chicago it seems to take longer. It may take 20 years before something moves forward. I’m just saying the discussion should be happening because the park isn’t getting any younger.
willie mays hayes' gloves - April 6, 2009
And I believe it can be renovated to last at least another 50-75 years.
Al Yellon - April 6, 2009
I say bull in return....
The only way to be sure any building isn’t going to have structural problems is to X-ray all the connections and bearing points. I agree, this is a large structure, but it’s not in any danger of collapse. Nor will it be if it is maintained. It may need a facelift but it’s not going to “collapse under it’s own weight.”
I am willing to bet there hasn’t been a single major league baseball stadium torn down because of structural problems. There are many financial or location factors that cause new ballparks to be built.
I believe we both know about internal stresses, shear and moment diagrams, and load factors but you are overstating any structural problems that Wrigley Field has.
Imtrejo - April 6, 2009
I repeat. I am not saying that the structure has problems, only that
there is a risk associated with maintaining a structure as old as Wrigley. You have to admit that eventually you will reach a point of diminishing return. You can continue to add on here and there at ever increasing cost, but eventually you get to a point where it is more prudent to start from scratch. I repeat that no building will last forever. Sure, the brick and steel will last, but there are safety factors that must be addressed with older structures like Wrigley. These factors cannot be ignored just because we all love the place.
willie mays hayes' gloves - April 6, 2009
Repeating my point about Fenway.
Also, there are many, many large buildings and structures far older than Wrigley Field still in public use, not just in the US but all over the world.
Al Yellon - April 6, 2009
In the distant future
someone may decide that to keep sinking money into Wrigley Field is the worng choice. That time is not now or anytime in the near future, as long as people continue going to Wrigley it will remain the home of the Cubs. It will be economic factors that cause the Cubs to move and not structural ones.
Imtrejo - April 6, 2009
OK then. realistically how long do you think Wrigley should remain in
it’s present form. Taking into account all factors, not just the physical life of the building, when would it be prudent to replace it?
willie mays hayes' gloves - April 6, 2009
In theory never...
but I will preface that statement by saying that in time Wrigley will not be able to compete with some of the other ballparks financially. It will not be able to bring in the revenue nor will the players stand for it’s substandard facilities. I believe (or hope) that at some point there will be a major renovation to the upper deck and grandstand. The question will be is it more beneficial, financially, to move the team to a more modern facility or to renovate. The renovation will be a major one, I would say 60-70% of the cost of building a new stadium.
Because you are asking me, I will say the Cubs do a major interior renovation sometime around 2025-2030 and Wrigley will be saved for another 100 years.
Imtrejo - April 6, 2009
I believe that that is unrealistic. Just the sheer amount of innovations of
all kinds will render it obsolete before that time. Do you seriously believe that a public structure such as Wrigley could survive for 200 years? I love Wrigley as much as anyone, but how many sports facilities survive for 100 years let alone 200 years. I am fully confident that future ownership will demand that the team be allowed to take advantage of the revenue streams that a new modern facility can bring. Wrigley Field is a wonderful park and the experience of watching a game ther is like no other, but it cannot be frozen in time. The world advances and the Cubs organization will advance along with it.
willie mays hayes' gloves - April 6, 2009
I do believe the park could be renovated to last at least another 50-75 years, yes.
There’s no intrinsic reason why not.
Al Yellon - April 6, 2009
Selfishly I ask......
…anyone know what happens to the displaced personalized bricks from this area, mine being one of them?
BeerCub - April 5, 2009
I would hope they get laid elsewhere in the Wrigley Field campus...
…but I haven’t seen any brick-laying activity going on anywhere. But I haven’t looked too hard either.
I’d suggest you call the Cubs directly and ask them. I think it’s a very fair question to ask, and one they should have an answer to. And it better be a good answer too – this has all the markings of a bad PR situation if they drop the ball (brick) on this one.
ballhawk - April 5, 2009
The bricks definitely will be placed elsewhere
Cubs aren’t going to be dumb enough to toss the bricks. They recognize that people paid good money for those bricks under the assumption that they would be park of the exterior walkway.
BLou - April 5, 2009
TWSS!
Al Yellon - April 5, 2009
Al is that you first twss?
Madison Cub Fan - April 5, 2009
Nope.
But it just seemed perfect there.
Al Yellon - April 6, 2009
I was thinking the same thing.
I’m sure the bricks are not the only thing that have ever been laid on the Wrigley field campus.
willie mays hayes' gloves - April 6, 2009
It's possible that...
the many of the bricks may remain where they are. They would just be inside the building. I would guess that they will be relocated but it’s possible.
Imtrejo - April 5, 2009
Now that I took a closer look
at the photos I think the bricks will remain where they were placed, except where the columns meet the ground. The addition isn’t pretty but with those doors open it will be a very nice place to hang out before, after, or during to watch a game.
The flow of people won’t be affected to much as that space has always been blocked off anyway. It may cause more traffic in and out and around though.
Imtrejo - April 5, 2009
As one person with a paver/brick in peril, I emailed the cubs.
I mentioned it in another post, but the short answer is the Cubs advise those impacted will be moved to a location TBD. Supposedly, if your brick is moved you will be notified.
N Oakley - April 6, 2009
Great.
Foot traffic during gameday is packed as it is without another structure to crowd people against the curb.
northsider - April 5, 2009
That looks very permanment to me
The way Crane was talking is that they could take the walls down and make it more like a beer garden rather than the International House of Beer (IHOB)
TkGoUWGB - April 5, 2009
Clearly Sherwin Williams was not brought in to consult
Look at the difference between the shades of green on the stadium and the IHOB
Ryan D - April 6, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Bleed Cubbie Blue to post a comment.