Chicago Cubs Reportedly Planning $300 Million Renovation of Wrigley Field
USA TODAY Sports
The Chicago Cubs will be receiving a serious face lift to their current classic digs. According to a report from the Associated Press, major renovations are being planned for the 99-year-old Wrigley Field.
The project is still in the early stages and has plenty of specifics that still need to be nailed down, but the current plan would take five years and cost $300 million.
According to the report, Cubs owner Tom Ricketts hopes to start the renovations as early as October, beginning with the clubhouse.
Cubs president of business operations Crane Kenney said that the Ricketts family would like more freedom with the renovations in return for paying the entirety of the bill. According to the AP report, the renovations will largely take place in the offseason, so that the stadium can be used during the season without the team needing a temporary home.
The Ricketts purchased the Cubs from the Chicago Tribune group in 2009 for $845 million, according to Bloomberg.
Photos of the proposed renovations can be found at CosbySweaters.com.
According to a blog post on ESPNChicago.com, the renovations could provide the Chicago area with 2,100 jobs and $1.2 billion of new revenue for the city and the Cubs.
The renovation will focus on new batting cages and clubhouse, expanded concourses in lower and upper bowls, telecommunications and restoration of the exterior of the building.
Wrigley Field remains one of baseball's most historic ballparks. The stadium was erected in 1914 and has served as the team's home for nearly 100 years. Only Boston's Fenway Park is older. Fenway underwent a renovation in 2011 (h/t MLB.com).
Wrigley Field currently seats 41,160 and hasn't been renovated since 1988 (h/t MLB.com) when lights were added. With a massive overhaul in the works, the classic stadium appears set for a much-needed, upgraded look.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?