The first round of inspections is complete, necessary repairs have been made, netting is in place and the Cubs and their consultants have vowed to watch Wrigley Field like hawks, with the Chicago Building Department in turn keeping an eagle eye on the whole proceeding. The crisis du jour is resolved and Cubs fans can give their full attention to cheering their team in pursuit of the St. Louis Cardinals, or at least a wild-card berth. All is once again right with the world.
Or is it? What the falling concrete in the summer of 2004 has brought to public attention is an issue that has been smoldering for decades, at times briefly bursting into flame, then subsiding again: What is the long-term future of Wrigley Field?
Engineers say a structure can be preserved indefinitely, but, they sometimes disingenuously fail to add, with an unlimited budget. The 90-year-old ballpark at Clark and Addison Streets, while undoubtedly as safe as careful inspection and maintenance can make it, is at or near the end of its useful life. It will only become more and more expensive to keep in reasonable condition. And the nature of necessary repairs, and the increasingly likely need for the replacement of more and larger structural elements, will only become more and more disruptive.
It is now time to think the unthinkable–Wrigley Field will eventually need to be replaced–and probably sooner rather than later. And not just the bleacher structure, a possibility recently floated by Ald. Thomas Tunney (44th), but the grandstand as well. The project promises to be an incredible technical challenge and a political donnybrook of perhaps unprecedented magnitude–even for Chicago. There are at least three major areas of widespread controversy that will need to be addressed.
The first problem area will be the design of the “new Wrigley Field.” Many will say, “What’s the problem? Simply rebuild it exactly as it is now, with new materials.” While that may be technically possible, it simply wouldn’t be smart. As lovable as the old ballpark is, even the most avid Cubs fan will admit it lacks certain basic amenities, such as adequate entrances and exits, pedestrian circulation space, restrooms, concession areas, facilities such as year-round restaurants and gift shops, which other new stadia take for granted, and more. Cubs management has been trying to sneak up on this problem incrementally for a long time, but has been meeting savage opposition to anything that might change the appearance of the beloved icon, or disrupt the view of the rooftop squatters.
In a town sensitized by perceived design shortcomings in U.S. Cellular Field and the “new” Soldier Field, every sightline, indeed every beam, of the new Wrigley Field design will be subject to discussion and debate. All of this, of course, will be conducted in the environment of ongoing jockeying between Wrigleyville neighbors concerned with minimizing the fallout of 81 home games a year on their gentrifying neighborhood, and Cubs management concerned with costs, revenues and control of its facility. The city will weigh in with historic preservation and building-code issues. To say nothing of an apparent “attitude” of some people and politicians toward Wrigley Field’s owner, Tribune Co. The wrangle over the design of the new Wrigley will surely be protracted and loud.
The second likely problem goes hand in hand with the first. Given the extraordinary public constraints which are almost certain to be imposed on the new design, the precedent for public financing for stadia for the White Sox and Bears, and the stadium’s importance as a tourist mecca and economic engine, isn’t it only fair that some public financial assistance be tendered for reconstruction of Wrigley Field? You can imagine the reaction to such a proposal in cash-strapped City Hall and the deficit-ridden state Capitol. But there may be aid that city and state governments could provide in terms of infrastructure upgrades, access to below-market financing and other assistance to ease the financial burden of the new Wrigley and make the project more viable. Not, however, without plenty of heated debate.
All of this, of course, will only be a scene-setter for the third problem: construction staging. Staging refers to the technical process by which engineers and architects sequence a complicated construction project so, to grossly oversimplify, “Tab A” fits into “Slot B,” times a million. The constricted site and adjacent businesses and residential areas, the very limited street access and Chicago’s infamous winters will all seriously constrain the project’s staging. But they are nothing compared to the question: Where will the Cubs play during construction? While it might have been acceptable to ship the Bears off to Champaign for a season while Soldier Field was rebuilt, can any true Cubs fan even comprehend the possibility of the Cubs having to play a season–or more–at the Cell? So whether you enjoy Chicago’s political theater, appreciate playing sidewalk superintendent on construction projects or are just a sports fan, the upcoming brouhaha over the if, what, how and when of rebuilding Wrigley Field will provide spectacle almost as entertaining as the baseball to be played there. Let the games begin.
