Wrigley Field Tear Down That Cubs Fans Will Love
Wrigley Field is old and crumbling. Though this is a fact that all Cubs fans can agree on, they still don’t want it touched. Not one brick. Not one leaf of ivy.
I have to admit that I used to feel the same way. Until the first time that I walked into Fenway Park.
Drastic changes need to take place to Wrigley Field before it reaches protected National Landmark status. Changes that will preserve the best aspects of the ball park for future generations and improve its deficiencies. A balance between saving its beauty and increasing its revenue streams.
The real question becomes, how can this be accomplished without alienating the fanbase?
The field and the outfield, from foul pole to foul pole, remain the same. The field, bricks, ivy, bleachers and scoreboard are left completely untouched.
Remove the marquis from the front entrance and preserve it.
Demolish the rest.
This solution preserves everything fans love about the Wrigley experience while improving on all which they hate. No one enjoys navigating the tiny, depressing concourse or the time it takes to make it from the upper deck out to the street. No one enjoys sitting behind the obstructions. No one enjoys the crumbling concrete walkways, nor the hot dog and nacho only menu which stems from a lack of modern kitchen space.
In the new Wrigley Field, all of this could be remedied. A multiple level, underground complex could be created for proper training and rehabilitation facilities, clubhouses and kitchens. Above ground, Wrigley Field could be a triple decker stadium, increasing potential ticket sales. There could be space for restaurants, bars and memorabilia shops, all of which would add revenue and increase the Ricketts’ ability to achieve their stated goal: fielding a team that can win the World Series.
The final step is to reattach the marquis above the new entrance, and you’re ready for business.
Oh, and the troughs can stay too. Anyone who’s waited in a restroom line at Soldier Field will happily agree.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?