Wrigley Field Restoration Update: Mayor Encourages Cubs and Rooftops to Continue Negotiations

Wrigley Plan - 052714The Cubs are on the Landmarks Commission’s scheduled Thursday to present the team’s revised plans to expand Wrigley Field. But the revised plans have met opposition from the neighborhood and the rooftop owners and according to multiple reports Tuesday afternoon, Mayor Rahm Emanuel addressed the latest with Wrigley Field.

Mayor Emanuel “encouraged” the Cubs and the Wrigleyville Rooftop Association “to continue to negotiate a deal that would avoid a court battle.”

According to the Tribune, Mayor Emanuel did not say the Cubs should shelve the revised plans which calls for seven signs in the outfield and go back to the two signs that were approved last year, a video board in left field and a see-through sign in right field, but he “stopped just short” of saying as much.

PrintThe rooftop owners reportedly went to the Cubs last week with a compromise that if the team would install only the two signs (left field and right field) that were approved last year, the Wrigleyville Rooftop Association would not pursue legal action.

The Cubs have not responded to the rooftops’ proposal and plan to go in front of the Landmarks Commission Thursday.

Mayor Emanuel said Tuesday both sides “should always have an open door policy to negotiate.”

Ald. Tom Tunney held a neighborhood meeting Monday night to give the residents a chance to discuss their concerns about the Cubs revised plans.

Ald. Tunney said Monday that some of the Cubs’ plans “fly in the face of what I believe is being a good neighbor.” Ald. Tunney does not approve of the Cubs revised plans that includes more than the two signs that have already been approved.

According to the report from the Tribune, Mayor Emanuel also voiced concerns “about the Cubs being better neighbors to the community” but according to the Tribune, “stopped short of saying what specific solution should be reached when it comes to the number of new signs inside the ballpark.”

Follow ChicagoCubsOnline on Twitter: @TheCCO and @TheCCO_Minors

Quote of the Day

"The most wasted of all days is one without laughter." – E.E. Cummings

Share on Fancred
  • Pingback: Wrigley Field Restoration Update: Mayor Encourages Cubs and Rooftops to Continue Negotiations - Cubs Chronicles()

  • CerranoReadyNow

    I say stick it to the rooftops. They drug it out this far. Don’t give in to their compromise. Also the alderman makes it sound like he speaks for the whole neighborhood when in reality it’s a small fraction of the neighborhood that’s fighting the cubs. The majority are all for it.

  • Patrick_Schaefer

    Emmanuel is covering his butt on both sides of the fence politically, but the landmarks commission should approve the proposal. The rooftop owners had their opportunity to sell and if they go to court they will lose big it will be long and drug out bankrupt them in lawyers fee’s and lose the lawsuit, due to the wording in the contract. At least that’s what they were saying their sources told them the roof top owners lawyers told the rooftops. On the Boers, and Bernstein show 670 the score.

  • Jeffrey Rogers

    I would say that after what happened this past weekend on the streets of Chicago the Mayor has more important things to worry about.

  • Patrick_Schaefer

    This may piss some off but If the mayor and landmarks commission won’t approve. Move to the suburbs and get tax money to pay for a new stadium. Or match some but they should have been looking into this a couple years ago.
    I like Wrigley but I’ve been to other parks and it’s a dump in comparison.
    They can put brick and ivy in the outfield and still have an old manual scoreboard if they want… but I just want a winner and the surrounding area suburbs are a nicer area anyways.
    They Cubs foolishly tied their hands by buying up all the property around there.
    Rosemont would be fine with me and everyone else I’ve asked.

    • JasonOfTheBurbs

      exactly correct! Wrigley is a dump. Ivy covers up a fairly ugly/old park, and then nostalgia provides additional make-up.

      Build a modernized throwback stadium, with all the amenities, in the suburbs, and they will come.

      Tourists fly into O’hare…not into the city itself.
      And real fans will flock to a more accessible stadium then having to go an hour into the city and pay out the nose for parking 3 miles away, just to use a urinal from the 1940’s.

    • Tom Hawver

      The only people it would piss off are the Wrigley business’ and residents. I would be friggin THRILLED if we played in a state of the art ball park, instead of a shit hole garbage can dump!!!

  • JasonOfTheBurbs

    What, exactly, do the extra signs have to do with “being a better neighbor”?

    Does the average Wrigleyville resident feel any impact, financially, emotionally, spiritually, or otherwise, thru the ballpark renovation plans?

    The alderman called a neighborhood meeting? What?

    This is about rooftop owners. If Wrigleyville residents are actually somehow opposed to an new improved revenue-generating ballpark, then they deserve to be abandoned for the suburbs and see their Wrigleyville mystique/charm and business become nonexistent.

    I am beyond fed up with this idiotic political posturing.

  • Jeffrey Rogers

    I’m not for the Cubs moving out of Wrigley but I am for doing what it takes to remove it from landmark status.

    I can understand the reasoning for maintaining the exterior appearance but modifications to the interior of the building should not be an issue.

    And if the historic appearance of the neighborhood is so important who approved rooftop bleachers and businesses operating in residential buildings?

  • Chris K.

    So all the bars that open in the neighborhood that create issues with drunks and disorderly conduct are good neighbors, but putting up some stupid signs isn’t it?

  • http://theboardridersuite.wordpress.com/ Theboardrider

    The owners around Wrigley moved to the area because of the Cubs. Not the other way around. Which pays more taxes and has a bigger impact on the community? Alderman Tunney seems to have it backwards and he really sucks in my opinion. Of course because of his stance he’ll be absolutely impossible to ever get out of office.

    • Zonk

      My in-laws used to live on Alta Vista, which is right near the ballpark. They knew what they were moving to…and were fine with it. They made a bundle too when they sold their house. The Cubs are obligated to help keep a lid on the crowd as best they can, but you can’t live there and expect that it won’t be noisy, with lots of things lit-up (and not just signs)

      • Zonk

        Basically, if you moved there in 70s before there was all this circus, than the downside is that you can sell your place and make piles of money. If you moved there in the last 10 years, you knew what you were moving to…..so boo-hoo.

        • http://theboardridersuite.wordpress.com/ Theboardrider

          And if you moved after Wrigley was Wrigley, than what did you imagine the future held? That this little, quaint but decrepit ballpark would never be renovated or changed? Hell no! You had two futures, one that it was renovated and that was what you had to pray for, because the alternative was that it moved! They had to know something would happen eventually and lo and behold, the ownership wants to keep it where it is. Which is in everyone’s favor. But it’s gotta be brought up to compete with some of the things newer parks offer.

  • Zonk

    Looking at the 7-sign proposal, a couple of those signs looked like they were positioned to do nothing more than block rooftops. I think it was a negotiation ploy.

    Not sure how much money the extra 5 signs would bring, but that incremental increase in revenue could be difficult and costly to secure. Unless it’s a big number, if I am the Cubs I take my 2 signs and move-on.

  • Pingback: Wrigley Field Restoration Update: Cubs Reportedly Meet Mayor’s Request to Change Wrigley Plans - Chicago Cubs Online()