QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Nov 19, 2010 -> 11:35 AM)
I'm really torn on this because I am trying to look at it as a baseball fan, a baseball team owner, and someone who appreciates history.
As a sports fan: The park, as it stands today, is a dump. It's a load of crap. The views are great, the ambiance is great, but the parks amenities and overall seating space is pathetic. There is NO parking, but public transit is good, but not everyone has easy access to public transit to Wrigley.
As an owner: I know that Wrigley is "the draw", not the team. Yes, people come to see the Cubs play, but Wrigley is one of the few parks that is filled no matter how bad the team is. Pittsburgh doesnt sell out and they have a ncie new park. Neither does Cincy. What's the difference? Wrigley. So, moving to a new park in the burbs or elsewhere in the city destroys your ability to draw fans when the team is down. However, a nice new ballpark gives you options to new revenue (parking, luxury boxes, more places for advertising)
History: Wrigley is a classic. So is Fenway. But so was Yankee Stadium, Ebbets Field, Polo Grounds, Boston Gardens, and Chicago Stadium What do they all have in common? They're all gone. They all had great histories, but for a variety of reasons, they are all gone. You cant cling to history as a crutch. Do you want to be know as the Yankees (not "that team that plays in Yankee Stadium) or the Cubs ("that team that plays in Wrigley")?
I do believe that Wrigley can be saved. They plans they showed are pretty impressive. But at what cost? Is it really work $400 million to try and rehab something old? The Yankees tried it, and 40 years later they built a new stadium.
There are a ton of terrible seats in that place with obstructed views.