Wrigley rooftop owners seek restraining order to halt new Cubs scoreboard

That view sucks. You can't hardly see the numbers even on the outfielders.
 
Doesn't sound like he wants to run them, if he did, he wouldn't be putting Scoreboards up to block the view.
He doing that to block the view of the ones who won't sell out to him.
Really? He's going to put up selective scoreboards to block the views from selective buildings?? Amazing, yet scary too that you think that.

Jimbo's right, he's clearly trying to buy up the properties so there will be no one left in the rooftop group to sue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Really? He's going to put up selective scoreboards to block the views from selective buildings?? Amazing, yet scary too that you think that.

Jimbo's right, he's clearly trying to buy up the properties so there will be no one left in the rooftop group to sue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I got that impression from the Chicago Tribune article. They showed proposed positioning of the scoreboard according to the rooftop owners "not playing ball with him."

I'm not sure if you read that article or not(I assume that you did),but here is a reprint of that article from a site that is not paywall blocked(or so is claimed,I can read it) for those who want to read it.

Cubs owner not only transforming Wrigley Field, but Wrigleyville, too
http://www.redeyechicago.com/ct-cubs-wrigley-rooftops-future-20150213-story.html#page=1

How proposed Wrigley signs could affect rooftops
http://www.redeyechicago.com/chi-ho...could-affect-rooftops-20150213-htmlstory.html
 
I lived my 9 years in Chicago right down the street from Wrigley Field on Gordon Terrace where I could hear drunk Harry Carry sing "take me out the ballgame" from my 8th story window. ANY talk of the Cubs moving or even thinking of moving is nonsense at best. I left before all those seats and bars were built. I have not kept track of the back and forth between the Cubs ownership and the rooftop owners, but I have a strange feeling there have been some agreements that have been broken. Time will tell.
 
Cubs should move to a better area of Chicago and build an updated version of Wrigley .... unfortunately that would probably remove the lake being right there and change the way the game is played due to the air current change.

Here's wondering if there is land close available that could expand the Wrigley villa experience instead of moving elsewhere.

Some of these teams were able to build next door or across the street.

Unless the area has turned for a drastic worse, which I have read no indication that it has, that is still the best location for the Cubs. Chicago when I lived there, was built out already when I lived there back in '97. The only locations now is the suburbs.
 
That contract was signed before Ricketts assumed ownership of the Cubs,& whoever agreed to it is no doubt long gone. When the Chicago Tribune owned the Cubs,all of those buildings that the rooftop clubs are on,at one time were valued about $37,000 each(going by a comment from the comments section of one of the articles I posted on this). If the Tribune had the foresight about the rooftop clubs,they could have bought up ALL of those buildings a long time ago. As it stands,Ricketts has a plan for those rooftop clubs during the renovation he plans,he just wants to own all of those rooftop clubs & run them himself.

$37,000? In the 40s. You could not get rent in that area in the late 90s for less than a $1000 for a STUDIO. I HIGHLY doubt that was the worth of those buildings when the bleachers were being built there.
 
Unless the area has turned for a drastic worse, which I have read no indication that it has, that is still the best location for the Cubs. Chicago when I lived there, was built out already when I lived there back in '97. The only locations now is the suburbs.

I agree about the Cubs staying at Wrigley Field. I even said earlier that it would most likely cost over $1 billion for them to build up from scratch what they are trying to do with Wrigleyville. Right now they are spending half that much to renovate Wrigley Field & surrounding area.
 
$37,000? In the 40s. You could not get rent in that area in the late 90s for less than a $1000 for a STUDIO. I HIGHLY doubt that was the worth of those buildings when the bleachers were being built there.
I don't know,I was just going by what (I assumed) a "Chicago resident" said. keep in mind,this was before the rooftop clubs came into existence. Before I saw how build up some of those rooftop clubs were,I had always assumed that those buildings were apartment buildings,that people actually lived in them,& that someone just put up bleachers on the roofs of a residential area.
 
I don't know,I was just going by what (I assumed) a "Chicago resident" said. keep in mind,this was before the rooftop clubs came into existence. Before I saw how build up some of those rooftop clubs were,I had always assumed that those buildings were apartment buildings,that people actually lived in them,& that someone just put up bleachers on the roofs of a residential area.

I lived close to Wrigleyville(actual name of the area) and it had tons of bars and restaurant and close to the lake and close to Lincoln Park area... it was not cheap.
 
I don't know,I was just going by what (I assumed) a "Chicago resident" said. keep in mind,this was before the rooftop clubs came into existence. Before I saw how build up some of those rooftop clubs were,I had always assumed that those buildings were apartment buildings,that people actually lived in them,& that someone just put up bleachers on the roofs of a residential area.
Thats what I thought as well.
 
Before the commercialization of the rooftops it largely was local residents and their friends/family sitting in lawn chairs on the flat roof catching a free view of the game. It was kind of like watching a drive in movie from the outside.
 
  • Like
Reactions: salsadancer7

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Top