Cubs Thu Nov 18 2010

Tear Down Wrigley? Nonsense

By Brian Livingston

It never ceases to amaze me how many times I've heard non-Cubs fans say Wrigley Field needs to go. Of course to outsiders something that is 96-years-old is too old and needs to go. My natural response is, "Let's see how you look when you're that age." As a baseball enthusiast, I've had the good fortune of visiting several stadiums across the country. From San Diego to Milwaukee, all brand new and modern. While they are nice, these modern facilities all lack several things. Charm being one of them, history being another. Now, most Cubs fans would like to erase some of the history that has occurred at Clark and Addison over the years, but that is what makes Wrigley, Wrigley.

None of these modern stadiums had that at home feel to them like Wrigley does. It is easy to get swept up in the mystique and allure of modern technology, but truth be told I'd take the allure of Wrigley over any modern convenience. Bricks, ivy and sunshine suit me just fine. Say what you like, but for my money it doesn't get any better than that.

Most complaints about Wrigley amount to: it is that it's a dump; it smells like urine or variations of such. As I said, I've been to other stadiums -- one in particular, Shea Stadium, was an absolute dump. Granted, it was the last year of its existence, but Shea was a giant toilet. I'm pretty sure they stopped cleaning it altogether in 2008. Those who complain about Wrigley being a dump should've gone to Shea, their opinions of the Friendly Confines would've changed dramatically.

My thought on this issue has always been as long as Fenway Park in Boston is still around there will be a place for Wrigley. Fenway was built in 1912, two years prior to Wrigley and has stood the test of time. How is it still around ? The Red Sox ownership has made the necessary upgrades. Yes, they talked about creating a new Fenway, but ultimately it was decided to make upgrades over building a brand new park. The same can be said for Wrigley. There is no need to build a new park just because everyone else has.

The talk of tearing down Wrigley is nothing new, but ever since Cubs owner Tom Ricketts announced he would like to make upgrades to Wrigley through bonds everyone has been offering up their two cents on what should or shouldn't be done. The Tribune's Steve Chapman is one of those individuals who believes Wrigley needs to go. Considering he is a St. Louis Cardinals fan, his opinion on this matter becomes null and void. I'd take a White Sox fan's opinion more seriously than a Cardinals fan. Chapman, like most, is an outsider; he says he gets it. Clearly he doesn't, because if he did the words "Tear down Wrigley" would've never been typed on his laptop.

Say the upgrades don't happen and they decide to tear down Wrigley and move. The neighborhood would never be the same. The Cubs are what drives Lakeview. It's called Wrigleyville for a reason. Sure, a few neighbors wouldn't have to deal with the occasional rowdy fan or two, but Wrigley is what fuels the neighborhood and without it the neighboring businesses would suffer, if not disappear. Tearing down Wrigley is not even an option as far as I'm concerned. If the Cubs aren't handed cash by the state, Tom Ricketts and company will have to figure something else out; but why even let it come to that? Yes, there are more important issues at hand than fixing some rich guy's ballpark, but Wrigley is a sure thing. Why not help insure that it will still be there in the future?