I've been in the Cubs clubhouse and it is pretty small. The restrooms are probably the worst in baseball, the concessions are relatively poor. The place just wasn't built for 2008. And I do like Miller Park. A lot. Very fan friendly, especially for kids. Miller is always a nice experience all the way around. But there's nothing a game at Wrigley. Fenway is the only comparison, and it pales to Wrigley in my opinion. I hope the Friendly Confines is still standing in 2050.

Ranking the parks I've been to:

1. Wrigley - Greatness
2. Safeco - incredibly beautiful
3. Toronto's stadium whose name I can't recall - Highly underrated
4. Great American Ballpark - OK
5. Old Comiskey - Decent, though nothing more.
6. Formerly known as Jacobs Field - Overrated.
7. County Stadium - I give it credit for unapolgetically being a shack
8. New Comiskey - I'm proved dramatically, but Upper Deck seats still very far from the field.
9. Anahiem - visited while undergoing renovation and half the park was closed down. Otherwise it might rank higher
10. Miller Park - Concrete dung.
11. Busch II - Didn't like the seats, hated the layout. Never had so much trouble trying to walk around a stadium in my life.
12. Metrodome - UG-LY.
13. Candelstick - I was only 5 years old, but I just remember it sucking.
14. Olympic Stadium - I really have been to a lot of crapholes, haven't I?

The Cubs would have a better chance of fielding consistently winning teams if they had a home park that wasn't so damned exposed to the elements. That said, Wrigley is unique in the majors if for nothing else than the neighborhood. Of the parks I've been to, Petco comes closest to replicating that aspect of it, but Wrigley grows out of its environs like the ivy grows onto the outfield wall.

Jay - Toronto's home park is Rogers Center.

Jay?

I'm sure the novelty of an old park wears off quick for the player. If you were an employee, player, of an MLB team, you'd probably want as nice as a clubhouse as possible. Only what player could come out against Wrigley/Fenway and get away with it?

County had great sightlines. The exterior of County was recycled sheet metal from WWII, it was very ugly. However the interior and seating bowl were actually enjoyable, had character, and provided a baseball fan with a quality experience. Only a fake baseball fan, caring more about the 2 hats, 2 programs, 1 foam hand, 4 hot dogs and 4 sodas and 2 beers would not like it.

The Cubs would have a better chance of fielding consistently winning teams if they had a home park that wasn't so damned exposed to the elements.

I have no clue what this means.

I assume any plans for a new Cubs ballpark would involve leaving Wrigley alone and finding another spot to build it in?

You pretty much can't tear down and build in the current location. The footprint is way too small.

I have no clue what this means.

Elements=goats

This may sound stupid,......but couldn't they find a place to play for two years, tear down wrigley, and just build a modern replica, that looks almost exactly the same but has some modern facilities and isn't falling apart ?

I mean nothing lasts forever...it has to come down someday anyway. Why not do it right?

There's not enough space to squeeze that in, if you mean build the new one where Wrigley currently stands.

Uh, not going to happen. Next.

I mean nothing lasts forever...it has to come down someday anyway. Why not do it right?

They're still holding bullfights in Roman amphitheaters, so why can't Wrigley last two millennia?

Demolish it and replace it with condos, then have the Cubs play at Allstate Arena

Demolish it and replace it with condos, then have the Cubs play at Allstate Arena

Now *those* would be some hitter-friendly dimensions.

Speaking of old dumpy stadia--the Allstate's kind of a shitehole, huh?

Speaking of old dumpy stadia--the Allstate's kind of a shitehole, huh?

Yes...and it's damn depressing to go to a DePaul game there when it's four-fifths empty. Nice cozy atmosphere for hockey though; I enjoy the atmosphere for Wolves games. Never been to a Rush contest.

And, yeah, I live right by Wrigley and I've been going there for 20-plus years so I'm used to it, but I can totally see tourists coming in for their first Cubs game, expecting the majesty and mystique of Wrigley Cathedral and instead thinking: "what a dump". Except for the ivy and the neighborhood atmosphere, the old girl has nothing going for her.

I think it's horrible for hockey, at least in the lower bowl. Way to flat. You can't see the ice past the people in front, and I'm an average height guy.

I can totally see tourists coming in for their first Cubs game, expecting the majesty and mystique of Wrigley Cathedral and instead thinking: "what a dump".

I'm just the opposite. I really loved it the first couple times I went. Now the novelty has worn off, and it just feels like a glorified high school stadium to me. I don't even think I've been to a game there this year. It's just not really a draw for me.

Ahh, you can't really appreciate Wrigley when the crowds over 10,000.

Which is of course to say ... like when I was a kid. :-)

I'll miss the old bastard when it does finally get replaced. Thing is, if they're gonna do it, they need to do it someplace gorgeous. I don't know that there is anyplace left on the North side that's gorgeous and in need of development ... how are the crappy high rises on Sheridan Rd doing? Anyway, I was very impressed with Pac Bell and I wouldn't mind so much if they could find a good lakefront site and build something like that ... but yikes the wind ... and the smell of the alewives. :-)

If they ever stick in the suburbs, well screw them.

I think it's horrible for hockey, at least in the lower bowl. Way to flat. You can't see the ice past the people in front, and I'm an average height guy.

OK, I can see your point of view. I've been to two hockey games where I sat lower bowl (once on the glass), and I much prefer watching from the upper level. We usually buy some of the most unexpensive tickets upstairs and then find a relatively unfilled section and sneak down to one of the front-most rows, right on the rail. (Lucikly, Allstate ushers usually aren't super-vigilant). I enjoy the bird's eye view more than the lower bowl one.

I have no clue what this means.

What I mean is the bleachers are so low that winds coming in (or blowing out, as tonight) affect play immensely, in a way that they do not at Commiskey II/U.S. Cellular. A quarter of the time it's an extreme hitter's park (early in the year when the wind blows to the outfield in the main), another quarter it's a pitcher's park (wind blowing in), and the rest of the time it's a slight hitter's park because of the itty bitty foul territory.

So? The Cubs would win more if they were well run, something that has been pretty uncommon the last 100 years.

Red Sox fans were parroting the excuse that Fenway's dimensions made it too hard to build a pitching staff, then the Red Sox got a good GM and won two titles in four years.

Red Sox fans were parroting the excuse that Fenway's dimensions made it too hard to build a pitching staff, then the Red Sox got a good GM and won two titles in four years.

And the Red Sox were whining for decades about Fenway, until they finally figured out what a gem they had and learned to make the best of it.

I don't give a shlt about the Cubs in the first place, but if they ever tore down Wrigley, I'd root for the whole goddam organization, from the front office down to the 25th man on the roster, to get kidnapped by the North Side branch of al qaeda and kept in an ant farm until the ants had had their fill. And then I'd put out a contract on any politician who ever cast a single vote that even remotely enabled this to happen.

Then I'd tattoo a giant scarlet "L" on the forehead of every Cubs fan who hadn't spoken out against the teardown. Plus a smaller "L" on every foreskin and every nipple.

And then I'd consider it even. But the new park could only serve goatburgers and nothing else for the next 1000 years, just to make sure that future generations got the message.

That said, Wrigley is unique in the majors if for nothing else than the neighborhood. Of the parks I've been to, Petco comes closest to replicating that aspect of it, but Wrigley grows out of its environs like the ivy grows onto the outfield wall.

It's more the other way around. The neighborhood grows out of Wrigley like, um, kudzu? That's not quite right. Like fungus grows out from around a fallen log? That's a little better, but still not it. Damn.

Spend the next two years re-building Wrigley; during that time, the Cubs can play in Shea Stadium.

Wait, what?

“Miller Park is beautiful,” center fielder Jim Edmonds said Tuesday before the Cubs’ game with the Brewers. “I have a much greater appreciation for that field now that we saw the other side. I don’t [know] what they should do with [Wrigley] because this is a great place, a place people have been coming to for almost 100 years.”

Why did the Cubs, the road team, see "the other side" of Miller Park? Don't tell me they gave the Cubs the home clubhouse.

houston chose the visitors clubhouse because it was familiar to them

Miller's a comfortable enough place to watch a game, but I wouldn't describe it as "beautiful." Too much of a greenhouse feel for my liking--lots of steel and glass.

And of course, the parking situation's a disgrace for a modern stadium, but that's a separate issue that's been hashed and rehashed here before.

And, yeah, I live right by Wrigley and I've been going there for 20-plus years so I'm used to it, but I can totally see tourists coming in for their first Cubs game, expecting the majesty and mystique of Wrigley Cathedral and instead thinking: "what a dump". Except for the ivy and the neighborhood atmosphere, the old girl has nothing going for her.

No, you're wrong. It's the complete opposite. First of all, you get a feeling of intimacy that you just don't get with other ballparks. Second of all, the history of the place embraces you as soon as you see the ivy. And third of all, it screams "BASEBALL" not "please leave your wallet at the door and pick it up, empty, on your way out".

It's just an awesome place, and I echo every word of #25 above.

A quarter of the time it's an extreme hitter's park (early in the year when the wind blows to the outfield in the main), another quarter it's a pitcher's park (wind blowing in), and the rest of the time it's a slight hitter's park because of the itty bitty foul territory.

Early in the year, the wind usually blows in (from the north/northeast), with July games featuring the fabled 14-11 games with the wind howling out. This year seemed like an anomaly...warmer than usual spring, followed by a cooler than usual summer.

As far as the "elements" keeping the Cubs from fielding a winning team--as this year's team has shown, being patient, drawing walks and hitting line drives (even without wind-blown home runs) aren't affected much by the weather. Put together a team of disciplined hitters and pitchers who rack up strikeouts (combined with a good defensive club), and it's amazing how little the weather affects whether you win or lose.

First of all, you get a feeling of intimacy that you just don't get with other ballparks. Second of all, the history of the place embraces you as soon as you see the ivy. And third of all, it screams "BASEBALL" not "please leave your wallet at the door and pick it up, empty, on your way out".

I agree with all of this, but I can see the "dump" aspect of it to a point--between the netting installed to keep the concrete from falling, the fairly non-descript (except for the marquee sign, and the CF scoreboard being visible from the street) exterior, and the creaky old concourses, it definitely shows its age. However, when it's full, there's nothing that compares, especially at a night game. I may be an apostate Cub fan for saying it, but I much prefer Wrigley night games to day games--not that day games aren't fun or can't be exciting, but there's definitely an electricity (aside from the lights, wiseacres) that's lacking during the day. For some reason, the crowd just seems louder, and the focus is all on the field and the crowd. YMMV, of course.

There's not enough space to squeeze that in, if you mean build the new one where Wrigley currently stands.

I'm far from a civil engineer, so this may be a stupid question, but why is there not enough space? Can't they build basically a replica of the current stadium, but with modern bathrooms and clubhouse facilities?

I'm far from a civil engineer, so this may be a stupid question, but why is there not enough space? Can't they build basically a replica of the current stadium, but with modern bathrooms and clubhouse facilities?

No room for the crap nothing-to-do-with-baseball accouterments - no room for 6 crappy restaurants, 19 souvenir shops, and the rest of the bunk that comes with a new park.

The park is pretty tucked in tight - there's just not much room to expand the footprint - 2 sides of the park are literally a standard city sidewalk width from relatively major thoroughfares that can't be re-routed, shrunk, or moved. A third side isn't much better.

All that said, Wrigley still has its charms.

The newest generation of parks doesn't quite have the same issues as the multipurpose concrete bowls of the 70s - so Wrigley can't necessarily lay claim to being among the best sight lines in baseball anymore... but they're still pretty good for near any seat besides those stuck behind a pole.

More than anything though, even with the LPTs infesting the bleachers, even with a greater share of knuckleheads than 10, 20 years ago -- Wrigley Field feels more like a ballpark than other modern venues... Granted, my experience with "new" parks is limited to Miller, Jacobs, Comerica, the new Busch, and Comiskey - and they're fine venues, but they feel too much like amusement parks where the biggest attraction just happens to be a baseball game. Wrigley Field still feels like a ballpark.

On a semi-related note -- how much is the new Yankee Stadium supposed to look like the current or past versions? My impression is that they are fairly similar.

Except for the ivy and the neighborhood atmosphere, the old girl has nothing going for her.

The seats are closer to the action that just about any place in MLB. I've sat in the Upper Deck and seen the wind blow ripples in the players' uniforms. Compare that with The Cell, where you're a million miles from the field.

The park is pretty tucked in tight - there's just not much room to expand the footprint - 2 sides of the park are literally a standard city sidewalk width from relatively major thoroughfares that can't be re-routed, shrunk, or moved. A third side isn't much better.

Once after a game, I tried to walk east bound on Addison on the sidewalk by Wrigley Field. That was one of the worst experiences of my life. With a crush of people going one direction, and a trickle going the other, pressed up between Wrigley and the CTA buses lined bumper to bumper, I began to realize what it was like to be at a Who concert. Finally, a gap emerged between the buses and people spilled out onto the street to relieve the congestion.

Yeah, all the resteraunts, walking ramps, and wheel of commerce takes up more room than Wrigley currently has, and they'd have to tear up city traffic to do that. Daley ain't re-routing any city streets to help out the Cubs.

Miller's a comfortable enough place to watch a game, but I wouldn't describe it as "beautiful." Too much of a greenhouse feel for my liking--lots of steel and glass.

I've been to a few retractable domes, and no place has quite the enclosed feeling when the roof is OPEN like Milwaukee. It feels like a pie slice is open, but it's still mostly closed up. Very unlike Seattle, which I couldn't believe was actually retractable when I saw a game there.

Dag, if New Comiskey's an improvement, why is Old Comiskey ranked higher?

if New Comiskey's an improvement, why is Old Comiskey ranked higher?

I assume he meant an improvement on what the new park used to be, not on the old park.

I went to my first Cubs game in years a few weeks ago. I forgot how small and cramped it was, and there was a pillar directly between my upper-deck seat and the pitcher's mound.

Also, whoever designed it apparently didn't realise that thirty thousand people would need to get in and out of the place - as far as I could see, all traffic is funneled through one or two gates.

The field is nice, though, and it was nice to be in a ballpark without a giant Jumbotron.

Once after a game, I tried to walk east bound on Addison on the sidewalk by Wrigley Field. That was one of the worst experiences of my life. With a crush of people going one direction, and a trickle going the other, pressed up between Wrigley and the CTA buses lined bumper to bumper, I began to realize what it was like to be at a Who concert. Finally, a gap emerged between the buses and people spilled out onto the street to relieve the congestion.

There's one spot where the wall of the park comes within 5 feet of the curb. Usually, there is a bus parked there, which means there is literally a crush of foot traffic at that spot.

Worse, more often than not there is a homeless guy in a wheelchair right at that spot, making people walk around him. I've ranted before that if they just made him move 15 feet to the east, traffic would improve immeasurably. Then again, he probably won't be able to earn as much either.

Oh, they just want a new park so Cubs hitters will get to have at-bat music.

Also, whoever designed it apparently didn't realise that thirty thousand people would need to get in and out of the place - as far as I could see, all traffic is funneled through one or two gates.

Four main gates -- one behind home plate (under the main marquee -- ones in the LF and RF corners, and one behind the bleachers.

The Cubs sell out every game and demand for tickets is at an all-time high. You don't fix what ain't broke.

Wrigley can be significantly spruced up without changing its essence. The crumbling structure needs to be fixed. I don't know what structural issues might limit expanding and improving the clubhouses, but it seems that that is also something that can be fixed up without tearing the whole thing down.

I'm sure nothing can be done about the obstructed view seating. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing them tear down the grandstand and replace it with a new structure that looks essentially the same, but solves the structural issues and simultaneously eliminates the support posts and provides a nicer concourse and facilities. That of course would require a year out of Wrigley, and would have a huge price tag. I doubt it would be cost effective, and the Cubs are probably not in a political position to get money out of the city to help. But at some point they are going to have to do something about it from a safety standpoint.

Four main gates -- one behind home plate (under the main marquee -- ones in the LF and RF corners, and one behind the bleachers.

Ah. I didn't get to the outfield side of the park.

The concourses are really, really narrow, though. It took way too long to get down from the upper deck to the street.

The answer to Wrigley's problems is fairly simple. There's a triangular slice of land to the west, between the ballpark and Clark Street, that has been bruited about for years as the site of a possible parking garage for fans. Since the last thing that Wrigleyville needs is more game-day automobile traffic, that triangular lot where the carwash and Yum-Yum Donuts used to sit should be used for an adjunct building. A creative new Cubs owner with foresight could actually use that building to not only make the Wrigley experience better for both players and fans, but it could actually be a moneymaker for him.

Instead of building a fan parking garage there, build a new home clubhouse in the adjunct building and tunnel it to the field, a clubhouse that would be the envy of every opposing player in MLB. Add decent batting cages, too. Move all of the business offices of the Cubs to the adjunct building, and build a new pressroom there as well (so that Rick Morrissey and all of the rest of the Chicago sportswriting guild would stop ######## about the ballpark). In fact, move every office that doesn't directly serve game-day fans into the adjacent building, and then use the vacated space in Wrigley to build bigger and better bathrooms, gift shops, concession stands, etc.

Then take the alley formerly known as Seminary Street that sits between the ballpark and the site of the new adjacent building (the land on which Wrigley sits was a Lutheran seminary in the nineteenth century), an alley currently used for club and media parking, and convert it into a shopping arcade with restaurants, gift shops, etc., on the adjunct building side. Dress up the arcade side of the adjunct building with brick-and-ivy walls. Put some more Banks-style statues in the arcade. Put the parking for the team, the media, and club personnel in an underground garage beneath the adjunct building.

There's nothing that ails Wrigley that can't be cured by: a) careful and regular maintenance of the grandstands; and b) good use of the large and available triangular lot next door that would relocate everything non-fan-related out of the ballpark itself.

Lots of Cubs fans had grandparents and great-grandparents who enjoyed games at Wrigley decades ago. I'd like my great-grandkids to have the chance to enjoy games at Wrigley decades from now as well.

"But the new park could only serve goatburgers and nothing else for the next 1000 years, just to make sure that future generations got the message."

This actually sounds pretty good. Too bad goats are just on the wrong side of my self-imposed dietary restrictions (they're too smart).

The answer to Wrigley's problems is fairly simple. There's a triangular slice of land to the west, between the ballpark and Clark Street, that has been bruited about for years as the site of a possible parking garage for fans. Since the last thing that Wrigleyville needs is more game-day automobile traffic, that triangular lot where the carwash and Yum-Yum Donuts used to sit should be used for an adjunct building. A creative new Cubs owner with foresight could actually use that building to not only make the Wrigley experience better for both players and fans, but it could actually be a moneymaker for him.

That was the original plan, back when the Tribune Company was lobbying to expand the bleachers. Unsurprisingly, it fell by the wayside in the last few years and certainly won't be an action item until the team is sold, if then.

On a semi-related note -- how much is the new Yankee Stadium supposed to look like the current or past versions? My impression is that they are fairly similar.

It will look like the original Yankee Stadium from the outside, and it'll have replicas of those copper friezes that used to give that version such a distinctive look.

But if you look at the inside, it'll be nothing like either the original or the remake. As with all modern parks, all but the most expensive seats are going to be set much further back from the field, especially those in the upper deck. Of course you'll have a world class jumbotron, which will add about 20% to the ticket prices. Thank God for that Extra Innings package.

What I don't know is what the field dimensions are going to be. I'd be rooting for the old Death Valley configuration (301 LF line / 402 Death Valley / 457 leftCF / 461 straightaway CF / 407 RF bleachers / 344 RF power alley / 296 RF line), but it'd freak out too many right handed hitters for them ever to allow that.

Lou (#45), that's a great set of ideas, which would let the Cubs gouge the morons to the max while leaving the ballpark itself for the real fans. It would also address whatever legitimate complaints there are about clubhouse facilities, etc. Any particular reason why, as Fred says, it's just fallen by the wayside? What were the objections to it?

#45: That's basically what the Henry ownership did at Fenway, and it's worked out great.

I can't imagine why anyone would want to get rid of Wrigley. In my few experiences there, it's struck me as a lot like Fenway Park, circa 1997. All it would take is some effort on the part of the ownership, and that place could look almost new, and be an even bigger money-maker than it is now.

I'm sure nothing can be done about the obstructed view seating. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing them tear down the grandstand and replace it with a new structure that looks essentially the same, but solves the structural issues and simultaneously eliminates the support posts and provides a nicer concourse and facilities.

Not only would it have the huge price tag that you mention, but for every obstructed view seat that would become unobstructed, you'd have many now-unobstructed upper deck seats that would be moved way further back from the field, a la the new Comiskey / Cellular. That's always the great tradeoff, and on balance it's a terrible one for everyone but the owners.

I'll second #45.

One of the good things with Fenway renovations in recent years is that the team bought up adjacent property and moved the extraneous stuff there. Offices for the team and NESN were moved across Brookline Ave. and above the businesses on Yawkey Way. Pretty much all food service operations (storage, kitchens, etc.) were moved to the site of a former laundry beyond right-center field.

All this freed up a whole bunch of space, some of which went into things like a batting cage and video room behind the Boston dugout, additional concession space, and simply more space for fans to move around. They also went vertical, building a few more floors on top of the existing clubhouse, expanding the clubhouse to two floors, adding in space with amenities for players' families, and (atop the whole structure) creating additional space for foot traffic in an area that needed it. They've updated the existing bathrooms and added more, and by the end of this offseason will have replaced every seat in the park (except for the wooden grandstand seats that date back to who knows when).

They won't have added legroom, nor seat width. They won't have dealt with odd seating angles and pole obstructions. But the place is much improved. And to me the key part was moving the extraneous stuff out.

That was the original plan, back when the Tribune Company was lobbying to expand the bleachers. Unsurprisingly, it fell by the wayside in the last few years and certainly won't be an action item until the team is sold, if then.

The original plan stressed the use of the triangular lot for a fan parking garage, an idea that naturally went over like a lead balloon among the residents of the 44th Ward. The point is to use the space as anything but a space for fan parking. Given a deep-pockets owner, approval for construction of an adjunct building on that spot would then become much easier.

Any particular reason why, as Fred says, it's just fallen by the wayside? What were the objections to it?

I don't think anyone was opposed to it. It was essentially the bait the Tribune used to get the bleacher expansion (i.e., if you approve the bleacher expansion, we will build a facility on the triangular lot). Once the Tribune expanded the bleachers, though, they put the project on the back burner. With the team up for sale now, who knows if the new owner will make good on it.

The original plan stressed the use of the triangular lot for a fan parking garage, an idea that naturally went over like a lead balloon among the residents of the 44th Ward. The point is to use the space as anything but a space for fan parking. Given a deep-pockets owner, approval for construction of an adjunct building on that spot would then become much easier.

Very shortly after that, though, they proposed a facility that would include a Cubs Hall of Fame, restaurants, and much of the same accoutrements that you describe.

See here.

In New Wrigley Field:

Entire Wrigleyville neighborhood becomes outer concourse for stadium owned by the Chicago Cubs, thus allowing them to make a fortune on rent.
A audio-animatronic version of Harry Carey will stick it's head out of the window every seventh inning and sing "Take Me Out to The Ballgame".
Old-Timey Scoreboard replaced by facisimile that uses Nano-technology to change score
Ivy replaced with Triffids

Very shortly after that, though, they proposed a facility that would include a Cubs Hall of Fame, restaurants, and much of the same accoutrements that you describe.

Quite true, but I was only referring to the original plan that you first cited.

TribCo did indeed use the promise of an adjunct building as bait to get the new bleachers built, since the new bleachers would provide a more immediate revenue impact. Long-term, however, the adjunct building would be a far more important addition to the ballpark.

Agreed, Lou.

The concourses are really, really narrow, though. It took way too long to get down from the upper deck to the street.

The concourses at Wrigley are as wide as an ocean compared to ones at Yankee Stadium.

That's too good of an idea for it not to be at least considered, Lou.

Dag, if New Comiskey's an improvement, why is Old Comiskey ranked higher?

They've made changes to New Comiskey since they first opened it. It's a prettier place than formerally, though the seats are still damn far from the field.

The concourses are really, really narrow, though. It took way too long to get down from the upper deck to the street.

This actually reminds me of a problem of The Cell. The aisles are too narrow in the Upper Deck. Actually, it's about as wide as Wrigley, but in Wrigley the concourse comes between the better and lesser priced seats, so it's only 12 rows of seats at a shot. In The Cell, you get a walkway, then 30 rows straight up. Any time someone stops a beer vendor for a drink, a line piles up for quite a bit behind him.

Not only would it have the huge price tag that you mention, but for every obstructed view seat that would become unobstructed, you'd have many now-unobstructed upper deck seats that would be moved way further back from the field, a la the new Comiskey / Cellular. That's always the great tradeoff, and on balance it's a terrible one for everyone but the owners.

Amen. Stadiums with obstructed seats suck for the back rows of the lower deck. Stadiums without obstructed seats are horrible for every person in the upper deck. Sure, some UD seats are also obstructed, but I'd rather have a close seat with a pole to look around then a clear view of an anthill. One of the greatest seats I ever had in my life was Seat 1, Row 1, Aisle 517 in Wrigley. Directly behind a pole, but then you move your head a bit and you had a fantastic view of the field. There are no fantastic views from the Cell's UD. All clear, but also all too damn far from the action.

Of all the stadiums I have been too in my life, Wrigley is the most special. Of the newer parks, i have been to Turner Field and the Ballpark in Arlington. Neither had a personality-both good places to watch a game(and both hot as hell in the summer), but they could have been in any city. Kauffman in Kansas City is extremely nice-intimate, good sight lines and good parking. But Wrigley is special because it is unique. Yes, parts of it need updating. But part of its charm is it is part of the neighborhood. That means parking is limited, but you should take the bus or El anyways. If they want to renovate that would be fine with me as long as they don't do what they did to Soldier Field. Chicago only needs one stadium that looks like a toilet.

New Comiskey is a hole.

Just took my gf to Wrigley for her first game there Tuesday, and she absolutely loved it. After watching so many games at Miller Park I was so relieved at the near-absence of the nonstop animated advertising that's everywhere in Miller. There are a couple little ones, which should be removed. No giant video boards. It's like heaven.

And even though we were wearing Brewers regalia, the Cubs fans we were sitting next to were very polite and friendly (that stopped once we were on the El, of course).

#64 - I wore my Angels cap everywhere in Chicago while with my wife, who mostly wore Cubbies logo garb; we got a few comments on how it could be a WS matchup, but no real hassles, save from a lonely and drunk White Sox fan.