HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     
Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #221  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2013, 6:20 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 17,638
There is a lot of drama going on, the rooftop owners are threatening to sue if they lose their views.

Here's my take on how this will play out:

The Ricketts are VERY wealthy. Their jumbotrons are almost certain to obstruct some views, so they will have to come to some agreement with the rooftop owners to compensate them. That will be their primary effort.

If that fails, they will win approval anyhow, build the screens, and let the rooftop owners sue them. All the while, they will battle it out in court and drag this out for as long as possible, all while the rooftop owners continue to lose revenue. Eventually they will all go into default and lose their properties to foreclosure, and the Ricketts will sweep in and buy all of their properties at a discount. Or, in lieu of foreclosure, the rooftop owners will take a last minute deal from the Ricketts out of desperation and likely with very unfavorable terms.
__________________
Eat less
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #222  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2013, 9:39 PM
wierdaaron's Avatar
wierdaaron wierdaaron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,009
I dont see how the rooftop owners could realistically sue (not that realism has stopped the filing of lawsuits) unless they have some kind of written agreement guaranteeing them a view of the field.

I know they have some kind of agreement where they pay a portion of their ticket sales, but whoever wrote that contract would have been a fool to include perpetual accommodation of their view. As a non-sports person, the whole rooftop situation strikes me as almost farcical. People realized that by standing on their rooftops they could see games (which the field charges money to see) for free, so they start selling tickets to their roofs. I'd imagine it's only tolerated because there's no legal protection for line-of-sight to a sports field and because if they erected a wall simply for spite they'd lose some face with fans.

If the Ricketts were smart they would try to attract the catered corporate/group events that the rooftops provide for by offering competitive suite options of their own, anyway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #223  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2013, 3:13 PM
joeg1985 joeg1985 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 316
Allegedly the agreements the rooftop venues have with the Cubs was struck while the Tribune still owned the team and protects their right to a view of the field until 2021 or something like that. I bet that it all plays out like the urban politician is suggesting.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #224  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2013, 9:44 PM
Chicago29 Chicago29 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
There is a lot of drama going on, the rooftop owners are threatening to sue if they lose their views.

Here's my take on how this will play out:

The Ricketts are VERY wealthy. Their jumbotrons are almost certain to obstruct some views, so they will have to come to some agreement with the rooftop owners to compensate them. That will be their primary effort.

If that fails, they will win approval anyhow, build the screens, and let the rooftop owners sue them. All the while, they will battle it out in court and drag this out for as long as possible, all while the rooftop owners continue to lose revenue. Eventually they will all go into default and lose their properties to foreclosure, and the Ricketts will sweep in and buy all of their properties at a discount. Or, in lieu of foreclosure, the rooftop owners will take a last minute deal from the Ricketts out of desperation and likely with very unfavorable terms.
Waveland and Kenmore up to where the Toyota sign stands right now would rarely limit any views. If you want zero obstructed views you somehow build it outside the stadium on Waveland and Kenmore crossing over Kenmore.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #225  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2013, 12:55 AM
bnk's Avatar
bnk bnk is offline
પટેલ. કે ન
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: chicagoland
Posts: 10,208
http://www.suntimes.com/news/1942446...eld-walls.html

Wrigley deal said to be close and include extending right- and left-field walls


BY FRAN SPIELMAN

City Hall Reporter

fspielman@suntimes.com

Last Modified: Apr 11, 2013 07:29PM

Marathon talks to renovate Wrigley Field are “in the bottom of the 9th” ...

The mayor’s optimistic outlook about a deal that appeared to be sealed a week ago comes amid word that the right- and left-field walls of 99-year-old Wrigley would be extended as much as ten feet outward — taking out the sidewalk on Sheffield and a lane of traffic on Waveland — to give the Cubs more concession space and mitigate the impact of a giant video scoreboard in left and a see-through sign in right on rooftop clubs overlooking Wrigley.

The Cubs plan also includes a...

In 2006, the Cubs agreed to extend the outfield walls eight feet onto the sidewalks ...

Now, the city and the Cubs are talking about an instant replay.

Both sides agreed that demolishing the outfield walls in right- and left-fields was part of the plan, but the motive depends on whom you talk to.

The Cubs insist the move was being made solely to preserve rooftop views and mitigate blockage caused by the two new signs that will help bankroll a $300 million renovation of the landmark ballpark.

“The plan would be to move the wall as far back as possible so the Jumbotron would have less impact on rooftop views. ....

“It does open up opportunities for us inside the ballpark — by making the concourses wider and opening up additional concession space beneath the bleachers. But, this particular idea originated based on the desire to accommodate the rooftops, period.”

City Hall had a different take.

“The Cubs came to us and said, ‘We’re landlocked. We need to get maximum use out of Wrigley Field.’ This way, they can expand their footprint even though they’re in a landlocked situation,” said a top mayoral aide, who asked to remain anonymous.

“This is not being done for the rooftops. We’re doing this to help the Cubs. But, there is an added benefit that will further reduce the impact on [rooftop] sight lines.”

The top mayoral aide noted that similar street, sidewalk and alley “vacations” are routinely done for developers across the city.

“We’re doing it for Loyola [on Kenmore to create more of a campus atmosphere near new dormitories]. We’re also doing it for Norfolk Southern [RR]. It’s pretty normal,” the source said.

...
__________________
facebook
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #226  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2013, 1:03 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 17,638
^ Awesome. Lets get a deal signed, a landmark ballpark renovated, and a hotel built!
__________________
Eat less
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #227  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2013, 3:53 AM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,002
Not really awesome in my book. In fact they are doing everything pretty much ass backwards IMO. They are really only doing a superficial touch up of the one part of the ballpark, the grandstand and second deck, that I think could use a whole demolition or overhaul for aesthetic and structural reasons.

They are basically defacing and fugllifying the best part of the park (outfield and vistas onto Lake View) and making a mockery of the use of landmark designation further in this city in order to put up oversize jumbo tron kiss cams that is reported to be three times the size of the current center field scoreboard. And given these are the hick owners who have brought us the shack that is the Captain Morgan Club, the Noodle, and used car lot Toyota signage I am not very optimistic on what plans they have for the hotel and triangle building.

Given that this is the third most visited tourist site in the state I wish the alderman and city had wielded more control over the process even if it meant using some of the amusement taxes to do a tasteful and collaborative redesign of Wrigley. I'm not sure why the Bears and White Sox get access to that money but the Cubs get excluded. Anyway, at best it will be a missed opportunity or even looking very schlocky and worse for it at the end of the rehab.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #228  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2013, 4:40 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 17,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee View Post
Not really awesome in my book. In fact they are doing everything pretty much ass backwards IMO. They are really only doing a superficial touch up of the one part of the ballpark, the grandstand and second deck, that I think could use a whole demolition or overhaul for aesthetic and structural reasons.

They are basically defacing and fugllifying the best part of the park (outfield and vistas onto Lake View) and making a mockery of the use of landmark designation further in this city in order to put up oversize jumbo tron kiss cams that is reported to be three times the size of the current center field scoreboard. And given these are the hick owners who have brought us the shack that is the Captain Morgan Club, the Noodle, and used car lot Toyota signage I am not very optimistic on what plans they have for the hotel and triangle building.

Given that this is the third most visited tourist site in the state I wish the alderman and city had wielded more control over the process even if it meant using some of the amusement taxes to do a tasteful and collaborative redesign of Wrigley. I'm not sure why the Bears and White Sox get access to that money but the Cubs get excluded. Anyway, at best it will be a missed opportunity or even looking very schlocky and worse for it at the end of the rehab.
Uhhhh........

WHAT?

They haven't even started doing anything yet, and you've already condemned the whole project as a 'mockery of a landmark', 'defacement', 'schlocky', and a 'missed opportunity'.

Well then, I guess you stepped off of a time machine, if that's how it looks in the future...
__________________
Eat less
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #229  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2013, 5:08 AM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
Uhhhh........

WHAT?

They haven't even started doing anything yet, and you've already condemned the whole project as a 'mockery of a landmark', 'defacement', 'schlocky', and a 'missed opportunity'.

Well then, I guess you stepped off of a time machine, if that's how it looks in the future...
The renderings of the rehab of the grandstand have come out. Very conservative and under whelming in my opinion. Not to mention it doesn't address some of the more important aspects to fans like obstructed view seats which take up a sizable number of seats in the upper rows of the lower deck.

It doesn't exactly take a genius to figure that a 6k sq.ft. jumbo tron (3 time larger then the current center field scoreboard) will dramatically alter and in cases block the look of the outfield sweep and vistas that are very much a part of the Wrigley experience and that the landmarks thoughtfully, in my view, were intended to protect. I don't know about you but I think I would much prefer looking out to into Lake View and eve the ugly rooftops then at an overstuffed kiss cam appealing to the ADD set. It would be one thing if I was convinced that such advertising was all that lucrative in the grand scheme to the Cubs bottom line but I have my doubts.

And you are right one has to reserve judgement the hotel and triangle building before renders come out but all I said was that given the Ricketts small track record of disregard for amendments they have made to the park and their plans for future ones there is frankly little reason to be optimistic about them having priority about quality design.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #230  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2013, 6:32 PM
PerryPendleton PerryPendleton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 115
Renderings?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee View Post
The renderings of the rehab of the grandstand have come out. Very conservative and under whelming in my opinion. Not to mention it doesn't address some of the more important aspects to fans like obstructed view seats which take up a sizable number of seats in the upper rows of the lower deck.

It doesn't exactly take a genius to figure that a 6k sq.ft. jumbo tron (3 time larger then the current center field scoreboard) will dramatically alter and in cases block the look of the outfield sweep and vistas that are very much a part of the Wrigley experience and that the landmarks thoughtfully, in my view, were intended to protect. I don't know about you but I think I would much prefer looking out to into Lake View and eve the ugly rooftops then at an overstuffed kiss cam appealing to the ADD set. It would be one thing if I was convinced that such advertising was all that lucrative in the grand scheme to the Cubs bottom line but I have my doubts.

And you are right one has to reserve judgement the hotel and triangle building before renders come out but all I said was that given the Ricketts small track record of disregard for amendments they have made to the park and their plans for future ones there is frankly little reason to be optimistic about them having priority about quality design.
Please... unveil these said "renderings".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #231  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2013, 11:04 PM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by PerryPendleton View Post
Please... unveil these said "renderings".
You didn't see in the previous post where I said I hadn't seen them?

Tell me why I deserve to be optimistic though given the Ricketts small track record of Captain Morgan Shacks, Noodles, Toyota signage, and declared plans for a 6k foot jumbo tron?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #232  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2013, 3:17 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 13,825
Now there are reports that the Ricketts want a skybridge between their new hotel and Wrigley, crossing Clark St.

Man, "no taxpayer money for Wrigley" is starting to look awfully short-sighted now. Be careful what you wish for.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #233  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2013, 3:32 AM
i_am_hydrogen i_am_hydrogen is online now
tilted & shifted
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
Now there are reports that the Ricketts want a skybridge between their new hotel and Wrigley, crossing Clark St.

Man, "no taxpayer money for Wrigley" is starting to look awfully short-sighted now. Be careful what you wish for.
Yes, skybridges are typically anathema to good urban planning, but this wouldn't have much of an impact on street-level activity given that most Cubs fans won't be staying at the hotel and will instead be wandering around the ballpark before and after games. The Ricketts family is putting up an unprecedented $300M of its own money. You have to expect to make a few concessions. This is one I'd be willing to make, especially considering that one of the ugly surface lots near Wrigley would be occupied by a hotel.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #234  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2013, 3:47 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 17,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen View Post
Yes, skybridges are typically anathema to good urban planning, but this wouldn't have much of an impact on street-level activity given that most Cubs fans won't be staying at the hotel and will instead be wandering around the ballpark before and after games. The Ricketts family is putting up an unprecedented $300M of its own money. You have to expect to make a few concessions. This is one I'd be willing to make, especially considering that one of the ugly surface lots near Wrigley would be occupied by a hotel.
Agreed. Wrigleyville's sidewalks won't suddenly be dead just because of a skybridge.

Of course, I don't quite understand the need for it. How hard can it be to cross Clark St?
__________________
Eat less
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #235  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2013, 3:56 AM
i_am_hydrogen i_am_hydrogen is online now
tilted & shifted
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
Of course, I don't quite understand the need for it. How hard can it be to cross Clark St?
Exactly. But you have to think like tourists. In their minds, it presents the path of least resistance.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #236  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2013, 7:09 AM
LaSalle.St.Station's Avatar
LaSalle.St.Station LaSalle.St.Station is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee View Post
Not really awesome in my book. In fact they are doing everything pretty much ass backwards IMO. They are really only doing a superficial touch up of the one part of the ballpark, the grandstand and second deck, that I think could use a whole demolition or overhaul for aesthetic and structural reasons.

They are basically defacing and fugllifying the best part of the park (outfield and vistas onto Lake View) and making a mockery of the use of landmark designation further in this city in order to put up oversize jumbo tron kiss cams that is reported to be three times the size of the current center field scoreboard. And given these are the hick owners who have brought us the shack that is the Captain Morgan Club, the Noodle, and used car lot Toyota signage I am not very optimistic on what b.
I believe according to the earlier released plans the whole seating bowl is to be replaced with the existing dimensions remaining intact so the visual historic sight lines will not be altered. I think the captain morgan stand was a tribune structure before the Ricket's bought the team. I agree there is no reason why other teams get the subsidy and the Cubs don't.

I fear that these negotiations are taking a life of their own leading to leaps that are slowly eroding the simplistic charm of the park, which is what makes it unique.....for now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #237  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2013, 4:24 PM
alex1's Avatar
alex1 alex1 is offline
~
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: www.priggish.com
Posts: 3,978
Never thought I'd ever say this but I miss the Trib ownership. It's getting harder and harder to give a fuck about the team and organization. Wrigley used to be my "church". It was one of the main things that the city of Chicago had that really made me want to move back for. That's becoming less and less the case these days.
__________________
n+y+c = nyc
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #238  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2013, 5:23 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 17,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by alex1 View Post
Never thought I'd ever say this but I miss the Trib ownership. It's getting harder and harder to give a fuck about the team and organization. Wrigley used to be my "church". It was one of the main things that the city of Chicago had that really made me want to move back for. That's becoming less and less the case these days.
You must not have thought much about Chicago if Wrigley is the main thing bringing you back.

I am obviously a huge fan of Chicago and I don't watch baseball, never been to Wrigley, and don't care much for the scene in Wrigleyville. To each their own I guess...
__________________
Eat less
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #239  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2013, 5:43 PM
untitledreality untitledreality is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
You must not have thought much about Chicago if Wrigley is the main thing bringing you back.
"one of the main things"



As for a supposed skybridge... WTF? One of the elements that makes Wrigley so great is the pedestrian experience, the neighborhood is a great area for people on the ground, what exactly does a skybridge accomplish?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #240  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2013, 9:35 PM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaSalle.St.Station View Post
I believe according to the earlier released plans the whole seating bowl is to be replaced with the existing dimensions remaining intact so the visual historic sight lines will not be altered. .
Meh, that sounds like a crock of s--t to me. Obviously if they cared about visual "historic" sight lines they wouldn't mess with the sweep of the bleachers or the vistas of the outfield. There isn't much to be preserved of the sight lines of the grandstand other then to make them better by removing obstructed viewing behind I-beams and the overhanging sky boxes which impede views. That would involve a full tear down of the current grandstand though I would think.

To me it just sniffs as if they are just too cheap to do a full scale rebuild of the grand stand and upper deck. Which would be a considerable expense but if we are talking about doing things right.....What I am surprised about is that a full rebuild or not there would seem to be a perfect opportunity to add sky boxes beyond the top rows of the second deck and the Cubs don't have that in their plans. I would think that would add a great deal of potential revenue and it wouldn't be taking away from the park.
Quote:
I think the captain morgan stand was a tribune structure before the Ricket's bought the team.
I think you may be right. I think it was under a different name but the Ricketts sure haven't made an improvement on it. And not to get too puritanical but I'm not sure given the number of kids that roam around Wrigley if the best sponser was a friendly pirate who slings rum (even I love a little Captain Morgans myself now and then)
Quote:
I agree there is no reason why other teams get the subsidy and the Cubs don't.
Right. And I hate the tax subsides that all professional teams extort from governments. I wouldn't mind at all if there was a law against it. However I just don't get why the Cubs and Cubs fans have to pay a punitive tax and not receive any kind of benefit from that tax the way the Bears and Sox have.

Last edited by nomarandlee; Apr 15, 2013 at 5:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts

Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:02 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.