It’s what Chicago Cubs owner Tom Ricketts said he was going to do, but still, ouch:
The happier thought is that these are simple bleachers, they’ve been rebuilt a bunch of times before, and the hope is that Ricketts will be able to put up new ones that look pretty much the same (he did hire an architect to focus on maintaining historical details like the right kind of railings) except with enough supports underneath to hold up a big-ass video board. Still, in the meantime, those with a squeamish nature around wrecking balls and landmarked structures should probably avert your eyes.
Funny thing is that it looks like the section being torn out was heavily renovated just a few years ago (it didn’t used to cantilever out onto the street the way it does now).
As you say, the bleacher structures have been heavily modified many times in the past.
The question I have is will anyone be able to see the period-correct railings what with with the glare from the 2 MW videoboard???
John:
Was that all the way around, or was it just the sections near the bleacher gates? I thought it was mostly the sections right around straightaway center that were redone for the Corporate Beer Sponsor Deck or whatever. Can’t remember exactly, but this looks farther down Waveland. I could just go check it out tomorrow.
Didn’t really think about how the new enhanced ad-bombardment features would impact how many balls make it on to Waveland until just now. Another thing to be mildly sad about.
They couldn’t find a less destructive way of doing this? it’s like night and day with the Fenway renovations.
Good question Michael;
As I recall, the decision to rebuild the centre section of the bleachers involved quite a bit more than the Cubs had originally planned. They built the batter’s eye lounge and essentially rebuilt what had been the ‘scoreboard’ seats above that.
I looked up some images I have on file for the 2006 renovation (which I would happily post here if it were possible), and they show added bleacher seats all along both Waveland and Sheffield all the way from the rebuilt scoreboard section to the foul lines. This hasn’t really been a surprise, as the Cubs have added bleacher seats several times in the past (generally without needing or receiving permission, so I assume they owned the land they built over at the time). If you look at images or video of Wrigley in the late 1970s or early 1980s, you’ll see far fewer rows of bleacher seats (this is most noticeable in the outfield fence ‘wells’ near the foul lines).
Good Riddance to those old, decrepit bleachers. As someone who attends many many games every year, I can assure you the renovation of the greatest dump in the world is long overdue, and welcomed wholeheartedly by the overwhelming majority of local fans and regular attendees. Sure, it looks awful, but what you can;t see in that picture is that they left the internal brick wall that holds the ivy completely intact, and the part torn down in the picture shown (as mentioned in other comments) is not of any historical relevance to the Wrigley “experience”.
Yes, they did the exact same thing in 2006. I have pictures, too. No social media outrage to feed back then. The “renovation” was a reconstruction, but they promised to reuse as many bricks as possible. My guess is that number was 1 or 2, because they sold the rest… in pieces.
What’s amazing is the Cubs managed to tear down the 2006 bleachers before they even broke ground on the “triangle building” that they promised as part of the deal to get that renovation passed.
Darian: You do realize that they are just going to replace them with more bleachers? And that this is so they can erect the video/score/whatever-tron board thingy? Also, the bleachers are about the most relevant thing to the “Wrigley ‘experience\'” and if that experienced is rooted in anything like “not being like every other ballpark” then the video board will actually work against that.
Finally, do you have any data to back up that this is what the “overwhelming majority” of local fans want? And no, a pay stub from a pro-Ricketts astroturf group wouldn’t count.
CFBM, I don’t understand why the triangle building is an issue – it was clearly stated in all recent and current proposals that that was not going to happen until later.
Michael, I am well aware of the plans, it’s not the fact that there are bleachers I have trouble with – it’s the fact that Wrigley is an over 100 year old building that can no longer effectively serve its intended purpose is a reasonable manner. The bleachers are most certainly not the most relevant thing to the Wrigley experience for the majority if fans. They are filled with some regulars, but are mostly populated with transient college kids and tourists. The proof of that statement is in the fact that there is still after all these years a massive waiting list for “grandstand” season tickets, but the Cubs cannot give away bleacher plans. The bleachers ARE the most relevant to the Cubs business operations though, as they are horribly overpriced for what you get, a bad view and the sun in your face all day long.
I live that ‘Wrigley” experience about 25-30 times every year, and I have done so that regularly for about two decades now, and have attended at least a game annually for going on 40 years, and it is no longer the “thing” it once was. Or rather, it is as much a part of the “experience” as the urine smell in the bathrooms, the fact that food cannot possibly be prepared in a sanitary manner, the fact that it is, more so than any other urban ballpark, surrounded immediately by the city around it. Oh, and the fact that when I take my 5 year old to the park and there is one – ONE SINGLE – family bathroom in a stadium with a capacity of over forty thousand. Oh, and the fact that it is by all accounts the worst major professional sports league player facilities in all sports. Video board? Who cares. Seriously, most folks – locals like me who are season ticket holders and attend many games annually – have been clamoring for one for years. As to weather fans want this or not, I refer you to any numerous Cubs fan blogs you can easily find on the internet, or I will gladly treat you to a game next summer in my seats and introduce you to my seatmates and let you ask them yourself. And the folks in the next section, And in all the sections.
What I really don’t get is, folks who don’t attend games there regularly, seem to think of Wrigley as some kind of museum piece or architectural / historical display, a baseball Mount Vernon or Historical Jamestown of sports or something. It’s not that at all. It’s a really old building pretending (and much of the time failing) to be a modern sports stadium. It needs to be fixed. I really enjoy reading this blog generally, but the utter misunderstanding of the issues involved on this issue I seem to constantly find in this corner of the web, is just exasperating.
I think a lot of it is a matter of taste. I don’t attend Cubs games regularly, no, but when I’m there I appreciate not having to look at a giant video screen. And if I could convince the Mets to dismantle at least a few of the screens at Citi Field, I would gladly do so. And I know lots of other fans like that, though clearly by no means all or most.
I actually wonder how much longer scoreboards will be needed, given that pretty much everyone can get stats on their phones now. You’d still want them for ads, obviously, but if nobody’s looking that direction and on TV you can just buy virtual ads, I could easily see them disappearing in a decade or two.
Darian: I go 5-6 times a year. Or I used to; went once this year. But I don’t think there is a threshold for attendance that allows you to have a valid opinion on this. I don’t know anybody who thinks Wrigley is pretending to be a modern baseball stadium. It’s old. That’s a large part of the appeal of the place. And I don’t base my decision to go to a game on bathrooms, that’s true of any stadium (weren’t they just redone within the last 7-8 years anyway?)
Referring me to the number of fan blogs clamoring for the changes, or to have me sit with you at a game doesn’t adequately address the question of whether the overwhelming majority of fans want this. For every piece you can find on the Internet praising Ricketts, there are likely just as many that are upset with him. And for every one of your seat mates there is someone like my neighbor—literally the guy who lives next to me—who gave up his season tickets this year precisely because if he wanted to see more ads he could stay home. So he will. You may very well be correct, I might be in the minority on this but your nod to what’s on the Internet and what you and your friends want isn’t sufficient data to back that claim.
Also disagree with Neil here, I can’t see videos scoreboards disappearing either simply because I can’t think of anything that delivers adspace that there has been a decrease of at stadia ever.
Michael: I’m sure scoreboards, when they go, will go kicking and screaming, precisely for that reason. But once people are no longer looking at them, ad space there won’t be worth much — not when you can just pay the team to have them push ads to fans over their WiFi network, or whatever brain-chip-implant system we’ll be using in another decade or so.
Michael, my offer stands for a game next year if you can make it, I’m always happy to watch with a fellow fan. My bathroom coment is somewhat specific to parents with kids. I’m an adult male who is comfortable with the men’s rooms, but when I take either of my kids, my son 5 or my daughter 8, to a game, the family bathroom situation is really a big problem.
Darian: A search turned up this article that aggregated from the Chicago Tribune on Jan. 17, 2006:
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsstand/discussion/chi_trib_rr_cubs_renovations_now_include_bleacher_boxes
“Cubs Vice President of Business Operations Mark McGuire said construction of the building on the triangle site of the former car wash near the corner of Clark Street and Waveland Avenue will begin after the season and continue through ‘07, with a scheduled opening in 2008.”
So no, the plan was that they would rebuild the bleachers then build the triangle the very next offseason. And now it’s eight years later and they are rebuilding the bleachers again.
The Cubs basically said they’d gladly pay Chicago on Tuesday for a hamburger today, then came back Tuesday and asked for another burger instead… for the same nickel they never paid in the first place.
CFBM, again, you make my point for me about some readers at this blog not being aware of the specific situation on the ground in Chicago. It’s ridiculous to even bring up an article from 2006. New owners, multiple changes of plans since then. In terms of the remodeling of Wrigley, that plan is ancient history, several generations removed from today and the work currently being done. The Wrigley family was going to install lights in 1942, but WW2 happened and they donated the steel for the war effort – so we should have hounded them for 46 years about not keeping to their plan?
The 06 bleacher rebuild was done at the Cubs expense, not the cities or taxpayers.
So no, it’s more like they bought a burger and fries, decided they didn’t want the fries and simply left them on the table, but then several years later under new ownership decided they wanted to eat again, and ordered some freshly made fries, and a burger and a shake and dessert.
They’re rebuilding the bleachers because the structure is so damn old, they can’t fix the insides – which they are doing in addition to the dreaded scoreboard, adding batting cages, new bullpens, electrical and plumbing, etc. – without tearing down part of it. The relevant feature to purists, the bricks inside the stadium that hold the ivy, remain intact.
The bleachers were rebuilt in 2006, insides and all. Looked just like the pictures from this week. Nothing but the inside wall with ivy left. I was there “on the ground” in Chicago. 3 million others are, too.
And as we all should have learned from the current process, the Cubs do nothing “on their own” without jumping through hoops for the mayor, the alderman, the landmarks commission… even the rooftops stalled it for a year. So the triangle building was part of a deal. And then it was part of another deal. Yes, new owners, etc., etc., but that doesn’t change the facts. As it turns out it was likely the right move, since part of that building was to be a parking garage. Bad idea. Doesn’t change the fact that they used it as a bargaining chip for two separate bleacher reconstructions.