Re-do Wrigley?

[OdeToArsenal47]

The only time they should replace ANYTHING in Wrigley is if it's

A.) Broken
B.) Dangerous

And if it's either of those, then it should be fixed/restored historically.

[STLCardsBlues1989]

Since I recently went to Wrigley, I have to say, I don't see what all the hype is about. The ivy, the scoreboard, the rooftop seats are all very neat. But the layout of the stadium, the bathroom issues, being so cramped on the concourses are not comfortable.It would be nice to find a way to preserve the scoreboard and the rooftop seats while building a new park on top of the old one. Maybe grow ivy in the new park.

I just don't see the appeal in keeping this stadium when all of the functional aspects of it (bathrooms, vendors, concourses) are more difficult to deal with. One thing I like at Busch Stadium is the conveniences of it, and it is a unique ballpark as well. I don't think a stadium has to be old to be unique. That said, the atmosphere at Wrigley was great, but I don't think that is tied to the ballpark.

I'm not against Wrigley Field, but I don't understand the hype, especially when there's a pole between your eyes and the batter. Of course, I don't have the memories at Wrigley. I realize Wrigley is a cathedral, but, from my perspective, it just doesn't have the comforts a lot of the newer parks do. And the atmosphere is probably with the fans. I doubt that would change in a new park.

Sure, the old greats played there. That's wonderful. But you still have to deal with the inconveniences that go along with that. I know some people will say "well if it was good enough in 1920 and it's good enough today." But we don't live like its 1920. I love historic preservation. I'm all for preserving and renovating historic old spaces (like Wrigley) and making them new. But I am not against improving aspects of it or rebuilding it, because it needs to be functional, too.

It's a good ballpark and has some very nice aspects of it. It's just not that comfortable to watch a game in. Miller Park and Busch Stadium were better in that aspect, though when we went to Miller Park it was almost dead. I may also be biased toward Busch Stadium since it is my home team's park. Still, Busch has many of the comforts we like. It's a place where people with handicaps and/or small children can visit. And Busch Stadium has the retired numbers and the statues and the engraved bricks on the pavement and different aspects that show off the history as well. I think you can have a good sense of history but also more modern amenities and a great atmosphere.

Just my $0.02.

[aragx6]

^^ Missing two innings because you had to wait in line at the bathroom is no fun, I heartily agree.

The tough thing is that Wrigley is in the middle of an incredibly dense neighborhood and the park has a small footprint. Unless you go tearing down a bunch of other buildings, it's hard to expand.

And I hated Miller. Though the game I saw was indoors -- that's just creepy.

[smoking357]

Originally Posted by OdeToArsenal47

The only time they should replace ANYTHING in Wrigley is if it's

A.) Broken
B.) Dangerous

And if it's either of those, then it should be fixed/restored historically.

"Historically?" It ain't Fenway. The place wasn't even built for the Cubs, and it's had several changes, over the years. Which "historic" iteration do you want to preserve?

If you want to restore it to Weegham Park, I'm all for it.

[Drover]

I'm not a woman but I have never had a problem using the bathroom. And the only time I've had an issue with a crowded concourse was after a game let out.

Yes, Wrigley is a cathedral. It's a working museum. Baseball is a game so steeped in history that it is almost impossible to separate the game from the American psyche. And yet there are only two MLB stadiums left that capture the essence of that history. There are only two places left where you can watch a game for the essence of the game, where you can get a feel for what the experience was like before the game itself became almost a secondary attraction to all of the "amenities" and attractions going on somewhere else besides on the field. If that's your preference, we've got one of those places on the other side of town. Why tear down Wrigley and replace it with something you can find at two dozen other stadiums around the country? If you want Jumbotrons, T-shirt cannons, gourmet cuisine, modern sound systems, sausage/pierogie/dead-president/whatever races, people in stupid mascot costumes dancing on the dugout roof, sit-down restaurants on the premises, and all the comforts of a "modern" stadium, your options are numerous. If you want to go to a baseball game and appreciate the fact that you're participating in a slice of history, come to Wrigley field.

3 million a year, win or lose in one of the smallest stadiums in the league speaks for itself. And that's why Wrigley Field ain't going nowhere.