Of more significance Ald. Tunney is the cousin of Robin Tunney, who plays Agent Lisbon on The Mentalist. It all makes sense now.

Ehhh...

It's the way the council works, I guess -- Tunney was a one-time north-side community activist who's now a pretty entrenched alderman. It's a goodly chunk of change, but I tend to doubt it's necessary for Tunney's continued reelection. He's probably a lifer now; he's got a solid base of support in the Boystown area that pretty much worships him (not without good cause, as I said - he was a big-time activist in the community for quite a while before getting his seat on the council).

What's more - the northside wards just aren't as 'machineable' as some of the west and southsdie wards. Take Scott Waguespak - the newest reformer flavor of the moment (nothing against Scott, I've volunteered for him and he used to be my alderman last year when I lived a bit further south) - the powers that be went after him pretty hard last time out and he still won handily despite facing a number of well-financed opponents, including an insider favorite.

Generally speaking, I would say that Tunney is pretty much representing what the people of his ward want... Unfortunately for Ricketts, that deviates a bit from what Ricketts wants. We'd don't particularly want more night games, we don't particularly want a couple of major streets shut down creating traffic headaches reverberating for blocks, and while I suppose I don't particularly care so much about the rooftop views, it is part of the 'charm'.

...we don't particularly want a couple of major streets shut down creating traffic headaches reverberating for blocks...

Is this your personal view, or just a representation of the "man on the street" view? Because I just can't see the point of this, given that both streets are already shut down during game day, and that traffic around the ballpark is already an irredeemable mess anyway. That seems like the least objectionable part of the plan to me.

(That said, I'm stridently anti-NIMBY, and have zero sympathy in general for people who live in Wrigleyville who are annoyed by living near Wrigley, so none of the objections that have been voiced so far are very persuasive to me.)

Generally speaking, I would say that Tunney is pretty much representing what the people of his ward want... Unfortunately for Ricketts, that deviates a bit from what Ricketts wants. We'd don't particularly want more night games, we don't particularly want a couple of major streets shut down creating traffic headaches reverberating for blocks,

Right. The most vocal opposition for the street closures have come from the residents of the area.

And to call Tunney anti-Wrigley is silly. Over the last few years, IIRC the number of night games have increased, as well as the number of non-Cub events at Wrigley Field (music concerts, movie nights, football & hockey games).

The most vocal opposition for the street closures have come from the residents of the area.

The street closures are not new and if for some reason you want to use those streets during gameday then I have to think you are pretty nuts to begin with. This really has nothing to do with the man on the street and everything to do with businesses trying to protect their free meal.

Is this your personal view, or just a representation of the "man on the street" view? Because I just can't see the point of this, given that both streets are already shut down during game day, and that traffic around the ballpark is already an irredeemable mess anyway. That seems like the least objectionable part of the plan to me.

Oh, I think it's shared by the neighborhood- Mark in #4 is quite correct.

Yes, the streets are clogged before/after games -- but presumably, shutting down the blocks around the ballpark would mean they would remain shutdown for the duration of the game. Traffic does tend to clear after the game starts. I live about 8-10 blocks west of Wrigley, and while I'd take Ashland down to Belmont or Ashland north depending on which direction I needed to go were I in need of travel around game start/end time, traveling the area in the midst of a game isn't all that hard (I'd usually take Addison to inner LSD).

I live in relative proximity to Wrigley because I want to -- I like being able to walk to the park on gameday and scoop up cheap tix if the mood strikes me, and during the summer, I spend most weekends walking to the park's immediate proximity for one reason or another (beers with friends or actually thinking about attending the game).

I accept that there are certain drawbacks to this arrangement - in particular, 18 nights a year - traffic coming home from work is a real pain.... but the Ricketts were also aware of the neighborhood's feelings about things like more night games, building a parking garage, closing streets, etc BEFORE they purchased the team... and we were here first. They didn't buy carte blanche to turn the neighborhood into whatever most lucrative carnival they could come up with.

I'm fine with the additional night games - I'd even be OK with bumping it further to 24 or 36 (but no Friday/Saturday night games). I'd be fine with maybe the occasional summer closures... I'm a big fan of neighborhood festivals - and street closures for festivals are a regular summer occurrence around town. Especially during things like say, holiday weekends -- by all means -- make a street fair of it.

However, again - there are limits. The Ricketts don't just get whatever they want and in this case -- setting aside the rooftops, which frankly, I don't really care much about one way or another -- they want a bit more than the neighborhood wants to give them.

(That said, I'm stridently anti-NIMBY, and have zero sympathy in general for people who live in Wrigleyville who are annoyed by living near Wrigley....)

Yeah, why don't they just shut up and give the Cubs anything they want? Why should anyone but the Cubs have any say in this? Hell, if the Cubs want to play 81 night games, who cares about the neighborhood? It's not their ball club.

Of more significance Ald. Tunney is the cousin of Robin Tunney, who plays Agent Lisbon on The Mentalist. It all makes sense now.

I'll always remember Robin Tunney as the first patient of the week on House.

When I read the headline, I thought maybe this was a flashback article and Gene Tunney was getting ready to take on the Wrigleys.

and we were here first.

Well, this is ineresting. This fact didn't seem to help the Tribune Co. when they were trying to get things done. I'm not sure why if it wasn't a valid argument for them it should be a valid argument for you.

The reason Wrigleyville is Wrigleyville is because of the Cubs and the neighborhood should be a lot more reasonable than it has been over the last decade or so.

Yeah, why don't they just shut up and give the Cubs anything they want? Why should anyone but the Cubs have any say in this? Hell, if the Cubs want to play 81 night games, who cares about the neighborhood? It's not their ball club.

Yeah, afterall the Cubs already get a piece of cash off of all property sold in the neighborhood.

Yeah, why don't they just shut up and give the Cubs anything they want? Why should anyone but the Cubs have any say in this? Hell, if the Cubs want to play 81 night games, who cares about the neighborhood? It's not their ball club.

That's a much more effective reply if you ignore the part of my comment that you've conspicuously ellipsied away. You know, the part where I make it clear that I'm talking about the specific complaints raised so far - words that I chose because I realize that it's an open-ended process and more complaints may be raised.

Besides which, get off your horse. I live a few miles north of Wrigleyville myself, certainly within the Wrigley orbit (most notably, I rely on the Red Line). It's not like I'm phoning in from South Carolina to tell them damned northerners how to run their business - I'm a stakeholder here, too.

The reason Wrigleyville is Wrigleyville is because of the Cubs and the neighborhood should be a lot more reasonable than it has been over the last decade or so.

And the reason Wrigley is Wrigley is because of Wrigleyville.

Put the same park in the middle of a giant parking lot on the South Side (a la New Comiskey) and people won't find it nearly so quaint and charming.

Well, this is ineresting. This fact didn't seem to help the Tribune Co. when they were trying to get things done. I'm not sure why if it wasn't a valid argument for them it should be a valid argument for you.

The reason Wrigleyville is Wrigleyville is because of the Cubs and the neighborhood should be a lot more reasonable than it has been over the last decade or so.

I'm not sure what you mean by the first - Tribco got lights installed and then after, they got a slowly expanding slate of night games.... and they did it by working with the neighborhood, not attempting to dictate plans. Again - I'll reiterate that proximity TO Wrigley is one/remains one of the draws for me to live in Lakeview, but - that doesn't mean the Ricketts just get to choose whatever it is they want to do with the immediate area. This isn't some big suburban parcel - it's a block within a larger neighborhood where thousands of people live and work. The way government is SUPPOSED to work is the way it's working here - those thousands of residents get input, too... and they're not being unreasonable - as pointed out above, concerts, football games (and I went to the NU-UofI game last and quite enjoyed it), night games - these things can be negotiated.

You're dead wrong on the last point though -- with very, very, very, very, very few isolated pocket exceptions -- no neighborhood east of say... Ashland (and maybe even Western Ave, if not Damen) to the lake is dependent on anything. Lincoln Park to the north is fine without a Wrigleyfield. The Gold Coast is doing fine without a Wrigleyfield. Bucktown is fine without a Wrigley Field. Lincoln Square to the NW is rapidly gentrifying, as is Buena Park, Andersonville, Ravenswood, etc. You can drive Clark or Broadway or Halstead or Sheridan north from the loop and beyond a few isolated blocks here and there, you're not going to drive through (m)any neighborhoods of extreme want.

If the Cubs moved, the only thing that would change would be that an awful lot of the ubiquitous sports bars that line Sheffield and Clark would close up -- to be replaced by boutique shops, bistros, and wine bars. The Metro would be fine without Wrigley field in the area. So would the Musicbox theater. So would countless other establishments.

I don't want the Cubs to leave the area -- but it is wholly and entirely incorrect that the neighborhood would crumble without them. A dozen or so bar owners would be screwed, but that's about it -- and the smartest of them would simply adopt to what would be a changed nightlife.

with very, very, very, very, very few isolated pocket exceptions

You mean the ones that are handing out cash to alderman and have been the biggest thorn in the side of the Cubs?

Put the same park in the middle of a giant parking lot on the South Side (a la New Comiskey) and people won't find it nearly so quaint and charming.


It's a shame all these new ballparks are empty.

It's a shame all these new ballparks are empty.

They're empty when the team sucks.

A shitty Cub team drew 3 million last year. A similarly shitty Oriole team drew 1.75 million in a gorgeous park. A better Mets team drew 2.3 million in a gorgeous and new park. A .500 Nationals team drew 1.9 million in a nice new park.

I would guess the neighborhood is worth at least 500K fans a year for the Cubs.

You mean the ones that are handing out cash to alderman and have been the biggest thorn in the side of the Cubs?

How many alderman do you think abut the ward containing Tunney and Wrigley field?

When I say isolated pockets, I'm talking a few square block radiuses. Granted, Chicago has a largish city council -- but exactly how big do you think a ward is? Those isolated pockets are essentially the size of the immediate Wrigley Field vicinity, which is a heck of a lot smaller than a ward. For example -- Uptown is likewise undergoing quite a renaissance -- lots of folks migrating north from the increasingly expensive Boystown area around Halstead... but there are a few stubborn blocks like say, the immediate block or two around the old Uptown Theater on Lawrence that haven't caught up.... but literally in walking distance - you can find some perfectly nice blocks, and plenty of upscale dining/drinking/living options.

I'm in my 30s - and I can tell you that of friends that have bought recently - and bought in the 3-400k range - these are the areas they're buying in... Lincoln Square... Ravenswood... Andersonville (where you can still find something darn nice in the 250k range)...

The people who lived in the Wrigleyville area in their 20s right out of college are deciding they want to stay in the city, but they don't particularly want to be quite as close to the bustle of the ballpark, so they're essentially moving a neighborhood or two to the west, north, and south of the immediate area.

Do you really think that if there were no Wrigley field, there would be this black hole of decay -- right up near the lakefront, no less -- with increasingly nice neighborhoods on all sides? The friggin' mayor of Chicago lives in Ravenswood, fer chrissakes...

I've lived in this vicinity for about 15 years now - and I can tell you that I'm getting priced out of it, and that has nothing to do with Wrigleyfield... My neighborhood tavern on Wellington and Lakewood used to be a package goods dive bar with a Pabst sign out front... now, it's Charlies Ale House type place with fine wood grain bar, flat screens, and chrome up the wazoo... I lived on Southport 10 years ago -- there was a dusty laundry mat right across the street on Roscoe/Southport... Today, it's a high-end Sushi bar. There was a mom&pop; convenience mart under the Southport el station -- today, it's an expensive wine store... there was a dry cleaner on the corner... now, it's a Julius Meinl....and on and on and on...

The area doesn't need Wrigley Field. I'm not at all interested in driving the team out to the burbs, but if the Ricketts think the area is "dependent" on the team, they're in for quite a shock.

I've gotta go with zonk and snapper on this one. The area doesn't miss a beat in the winter; Clark Street is still crawling with twentysomethings on a nightly basis year round.

Wrigley Field was certainly a factor in building up the surrounding area, but at this point, it has become self-sustaining.

I've gotta go with zonk and snapper on this one. The area doesn't miss a beat in the winter; Clark Street is still crawling with twentysomethings on a nightly basis year round.

Wrigley Field was certainly a factor in building up the surrounding area, but at this point, it has become self-sustaining.

Then why is it an issue what the Cubs do?

( ...we don't particularly want a couple of major streets shut down creating traffic headaches reverberating for blocks...

Is this your personal view, or just a representation of the "man on the street" view? Because I just can't see the point of this, given that both streets are already shut down during game day, and that traffic around the ballpark is already an irredeemable mess anyway. That seems like the least objectionable part of the plan to me.

That said, I'm stridently anti-NIMBY, and have zero sympathy in general for people who live in Wrigleyville who are annoyed by living near Wrigley....)

Yeah, why don't they just shut up and give the Cubs anything they want? Why should anyone but the Cubs have any say in this? Hell, if the Cubs want to play 81 night games, who cares about the neighborhood? It's not their ball club.

That's a much more effective reply if you ignore the part of my comment that you've conspicuously ellipsied away. You know, the part where I make it clear that I'm talking about the specific complaints raised so far - words that I chose because I realize that it's an open-ended process and more complaints may be raised.

I was responding to the specific sentiment in which you clearly dismissed any neighborhood complaints against the Cubs' plans. It's hard to find much nuance when you express "zero sympathy in general for people who live in Wrigleyville who are annoyed by living near Wrigley...." But perhaps you didn't really mean that.

Besides which, get off your horse. I live a few miles north of Wrigleyville myself, certainly within the Wrigley orbit (most notably, I rely on the Red Line). It's not like I'm phoning in from South Carolina to tell them damned northerners how to run their business - I'm a stakeholder here, too.

Well, if the problems associated with traffic and noise extend all the way north to where you live, then obviously they're even worse that we've been led to believe. Not that there's anything wrong with your voicing your opinion on this, but it's not as if you're going to be affected in more than an extremely minor way.

Look, the Cubs help make the neighborhood what it is, and 67 years of being an on-field laughingstock aside, the neighborhood helps to make the Cubs what they are. Playing the chicken and egg game doesn't solve anything. And if you didn't have the neighborhood bars around there, you'd also lose a lot of the ambiance, so it's not as if they're total parasites, either.

The bottom line is that Wrigley Field doesn't sit in the middle of nowhere, and questions like the number of allowable night games aren't exempt from the politics of the neighborhood. That's true for any city, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

OTOH there's one issue where I'd side with the Cubs: Whatever they want to extort out of the speculators who bought those rooftop apartments overlooking the bleachers, more power to them. Since those people charge whatever the market will bear, I've got "zero sympathy" for them if the Cubs decide to keep jacking up their part of the ante.

Then why is it an issue what the Cubs do?

Because what the Cubs propose to do impacts more than just the Cubs. If the Cubs want to hold bikini races inside the park, they're free to do so. If they want to have the PA do the lineups and scoring calls in Spanish, they're free to do so.

However, they don't get to close down streets whenever they want -- just like no other business or group of residents gets to arbitrarily say when they'd like to shut down streets. I was formerly involved in my previous hood's annual block party -- to get permission to block off the streets, there were permits, a certain number of OK's from the block's immediate residents, and a process to make it happen. Our particular block party was an annual event, and we had no issues getting the OK from the impacted (mainly because the impacted were also the participants), but if someone had suggested we make it a weekly event, much less a daily event, I doubt we'd have gotten the OK.

Closing off two streets 81 days a year is a non-starter...

They're also bound by certain construction restrictions, some yes, related to the ballpark's landmark status -- but by the same token, everyone in the city is likewise bound by certain similar constraints. They won't let you put up certain signage in Lincoln Park... There have been plenty of franchises that were denied building permits -- or, had to alter their plans -- in other neighborhoods. The Cubs aren't facing anything that any other resident or business owner doesn't face... namely, the wishes of the community.

Then why is it an issue what the Cubs do?

Because the people that live there care? Cubs games bring excess traffic - particularly car traffic - that non-Cub-game nights don't.

EDIT: Basically, what zonk said.

BTW -

It ought to be noted, too -- no one, particularly TFA -- seems to be remembering that the Cubs propose to pay for all this not with their own money, but with city bonds... which means I think we get a double voice here, while the Ricketts are somewhere in negative voice territory. If they want to pay for all these things solely with their own money, then we can discuss it as equal voices... residents and business owners arguing over zoning issues.... but having us bond it all, too?

we don't particularly want a couple of major streets shut down creating traffic headaches reverberating for blocks

What major streets would be shut down? I've only heard Sheffield and Waveland right outside the stadium, neither of which are particulary "major", and when I was over there for a game a few weeks ago (Friday afternoon) Sheffield was already shut down anyway.

I'm in Tunney's ward, and I'm not particularly thrilled with the plans he's backed that will turn the corner of Clark and Addison into a big mall, basically. I'm certainly not fond of the idea of Goose Island having close down over there. Not to mention, the freaking water main project on my street is taking forever, despite good weather, and there's been very little communication with residents. I don't hate the guy or anything, but I think he's a little too beholden to the corporate interests, and I certainly don't see myself patronizing an Anne Sather anytime soon.

My neighborhood tavern on Wellington and Lakewood used to be a package goods dive bar with a Pabst sign out front... now, it's Charlies Ale House type place with fine wood grain bar, flat screens, and chrome up the wazoo

It has also gotten very fratty, at least the last time I was there. Not that the closest bar to me (Schoolyard) is any better. Though I suppose Higgins' may still be the divey place in the area, but I've never actually walked in there.

I can't remember walking by Wrigley (on a gameday) when Waveland and Sheffield weren't shut down.

It has also gotten very fratty, at least the last time I was there. Not that the closest bar to me (Schoolyard) is any better. Though I suppose Higgins' may still be the divey place in the area, but I've never actually walked in there.

I honestly don't know if it's just that I'm getting older or what -- but yeah, the annoyance factor has gotten rather high in the local watering holes. In the proper crowd and in the proper mood, I can enjoy just about drinking establishment... but sometimes you just want a no frills joint where you don't have to stand shoulder to shoulder and wait on a drunken 20something to decide which kind of grey goose she wants in her cosmo.

I would still give Higgins decent marks in that regard. If you go further west, there remain a few hole-in-the-wall type places. The entire "southport corridor" has become nearly as undrinkable as the immediate clark/sheffield area, unless you're in the mood for that sort of night out.

Mainly since I've moved a bit further north, I tend to like AJ Hudsons (formerly Ginger's Ale House) mainly because it's A)walking distance from my place, and B)far enough west that it's not usually packed.

It's somewhat fru-fru - so far from a dive, I guess -- but up more towards Belmont -- I love Fizz... very, very good beer menu (any place with BOTH Rogue's Dead Guy and Delirium Tremens gets an automatic thumbs up for beer in my book), decent food, and a really nice outside seating area.

I like Fizz a lot, and Beckett's as well. Down Belmont, the Pony Inn can be fun only with the right crowd, but does draw a lot of insufferable people. I wouldn't really recommend it.

Back on Lincoln, Waterhouse is OK. They have good trivia on Wednesday nights (though I prefer the conflicting trivia at Temple, down at Ashland and Wellington). Finley Dunnes is good, as well. Northdown is new-ish, and has decent food and nice beers on tap, but really has more of a restaurant feel. I've only been in Green Lady for a few minutes, and didn't have anything to drink.

Of course, if you want a really dive bar in that area, you must go to Four Trey's, which is carpeted.

As you get west, I like Black Rock on Damen. Village Tap on Roscoe is another one of my favorites, with a nice garden out back.

As I live in Lake County, I have no idea what any of you are wittering on about. Surely what's good for the Cubs is good for us all, right? Right?

Of course, if you want a really dive bar in that area, you must go to Four Trey's, which is carpeted.

Yes, that was one whose name was escaping me... but it's definitely one of the better, true dives left in the area.

I'd also go thumbs up on Dunne's.

In the realm of true dives -- there's another little place further west on Wellington (~near the tracks, about 2 blocks west of the Jewel) called Millie's that excels at divery.

In the realm of true dives -- there's another little place further west on Wellington (~near the tracks, about 2 blocks west of the Jewel) called Millie's that excels at divery.

Cody's is near there, as well; on Paulina, between Wellington and Barry, I believe. It's got a nice dive-y feel to it, along with a pool table, dartboards, and board games.

Cody's in another good one.. or at least used to be - haven't been there in quite a while. Generally, if you're willing to go Ashland and west of, you can avoid the fratty crowd. It's been well drummed into their heads that civilization stops at Ashland, a myth I heartily encourage and take great pains to perpetuate myself.

What major streets would be shut down? I've only heard Sheffield and Waveland right outside the stadium, neither of which are particulary "major"...

Yeah, just Waveland and Sheffield.

I guess I can see an argument for Sheffield as semi-major, since it's basically a continuation of Sheridan from the north and has a lot of commercial activity between Addison and Belmont to the south. But Waveland is a residential neighborhood street, and I would think that residents would want to discourage heavy vehicle traffic on Waveland as much as possible.

I was responding to the specific sentiment in which you clearly dismissed any neighborhood complaints against the Cubs' plans. It's hard to find much nuance when you express "zero sympathy in general for people who live in Wrigleyville who are annoyed by living near Wrigley...." But perhaps you didn't really mean that.

Well, let me rephrase, since having now omitted both the first and last parts of my above sentence, you're clearly doing your damnedest to strip my statement of its context:

I have zero sympathy for concerns along NIMBY lines voiced by Wrigleyville residents who are annoyed by living near Wrigley, which accounts for the concerns raised about this project so far.

If zonk (or even better, someone of a more journalistic bent) really wants to break down the financing for the project and whether it's a good deal for the city overall, I'm all ears. But I don't care if zonk has to spend more time in traffic or if business owners get more competition in the tourist-exploiting food and beverage racket or if residents in general are cranky about lots of people visiting the international tourist destination in their neighborhood that has been an institution since most of their grandparents were gleams in their great-grandparents' eyes.

I just don't. They're trivial concerns, even, I suspect, to the people who are more affected than I ... even zonk isn't pretending that this would be anything more than a minor annoyance to him in the overall scheme of things.

I miss living in the city. Finley Dunne's was my regular place when I lived on Ashland, and still go there when hanging out in the city. Cody's is pretty good too. I like Fizz's beer garden, but have never liked anything else about it. Village Tap is awesome. When I first lived in the city, I lived directly across the street from Black Rock and hated it. I assume it's gotten better in the last 10 years.

Were I to still live in the city, I haven't seen anything the Cubs have proposed that I would object to (leaving out the money part), especially not closing Waveland and Sheffield. It's disingenuous to call them major streets and as others have said you have to be pretty dumb to try and drive down them around game time.

I just don't. They're trivial concerns, even, I suspect, to the people who are more affected than I; even zonk isn't pretending that this would be anything more than a minor annoyance to him in the overall scheme of things.

Well, yeah, but it's a minor annoyance that I have a voice in preventing, so why shouldn't I prevent it? It's not like I'm threatening to burn down Wrigley in protest -- the alderman wants community input, the community is giving him input, so that's that.

Hey - I can be bought, too... if the Ricketts want to get something done, they could probably buy enough public support by say... offering to subsidize neighborhood stickers, just as an example. I don't know what the cost would be - but I have to imagine 10 bucks a pop runs well shy of a half a million bucks, and for 10 bucks -- I'd probably shut up about it.

Absent a payoff, I'll voice my opposition.

I tend to prefer going up to North Center/Lincoln Square (Wild Goose or Bad Dog) these days, but if I'm out in my own neighborhood (or at least walking distance), Beckett's and Fizz are both solid. I've been to Northdown once, though we used to go there when it was called Bourbon and there was never anyone there. I haven't been to Green Lady since it was the Shire. I like Four Moons a lot. That and Village Tap have pretty good beer selection. Coopers has a good beer menu and decent food as well, and is probably the second or third closest place to me after Schoolyard and Schuba's.

In the realm of true dives -- there's another little place further west on Wellington (~near the tracks, about 2 blocks west of the Jewel) called Millie's that excels at divery.

That place is pretty divey looking. When Dayn lived in that area I used to walk by it all the time, but I don't think we ever actually went there. The Ashland is a cool place when it's open. I've never been to Sidestreet Saloon, but it looks like a real locals place. I seem to end up at Bird's Nest occasionally, and it can be slightly douchey, but usually isn't too bad.

Speaking of North Center, Half Acre is opening up their own tap room pretty soon. No food, but they're encouraging people to order food in from local places, and they'll have some stuff only available at the tap room. Should be pretty cool, but probably pretty busy.

But I don't care [...]or if residents in general are cranky about lots of people visiting the international tourist destination

I understand if you don't care, but shouldn't the elected representative for this community care about these residents' opinions? And not just, like, one or two cranky residents, but entire community groups?

I'm in Tunney's ward, and I'm not particularly thrilled with the plans he's backed that will turn the corner of Clark and Addison into a big mall, basically.

I think Addison Park & Clark has been put on hold indefinitely, the developers can't get the financing. I too would've been bummed to lose Goose Island (though they probably would've come back) & that cool "EAT" sign outside that restaurant, but that alley and the now-abandoned Bar Louie are an eyesore at the corner of Clark & Addison.

EDIT: Regarding the streets closings at Sheffield & Waveland. I think the Cubs want to do more than just close the streets off so Cubs' fans can easily get in and out of Wrigley. They'd like to hold weekly street festivals on these streets, similar to, say, the Belmont-Sheffield Music Fest.

Speaking of North Center, Half Acre is opening up their own tap room pretty soon. No food, but they're encouraging people to order food in from local places, and they'll have some stuff only available at the tap room. Should be pretty cool, but probably pretty busy.

I've got a good friend who lives a few blocks from Half Acre, and it's always good when he shows up at BBQs, because he usually comes with multiple growlers in tow.

I would likewise give up thumbs up to Wild Goose when I'm further north.... and I will agree with everyone on Village Tap, unfortunately - in a breakup some years back, the ex got that bar in the settlement, so it's one I generally don't frequent. I should check the papers again, perhaps my quarantine is up.

I was responding to the specific sentiment in which you clearly dismissed any neighborhood complaints against the Cubs' plans. It's hard to find much nuance when you express "zero sympathy in general for people who live in Wrigleyville who are annoyed by living near Wrigley...." But perhaps you didn't really mean that.

Well, let me rephrase, since having now omitted both the first and last parts of my above sentence, you're clearly doing your damnedest to strip my statement of its context:

Brian, in #19 I quoted your post # 3 in its entirety. Whatever context you had in there I quoted in full.

And here I'll quote what you just wrote now, which says the same thing:

If zonk (or even better, someone of a more journalistic bent) really wants to break down the financing for the project and whether it's a good deal for the city overall, I'm all ears. But I don't care if zonk has to spend more time in traffic or if business owners get more competition in the tourist-exploiting food and beverage racket or if residents in general are cranky about lots of people visiting the international tourist destination in their neighborhood that has been an institution since most of their grandparents were gleams in their great-grandparents' eyes.

I just don't. They're trivial concerns, even, I suspect, to the people who are more affected than I ... even zonk isn't pretending that this would be anything more than a minor annoyance to him in the overall scheme of things.

You don't care what the neighborhood has to go through, and I don't give a damn if the Cubs have to jump through hoops to get what they want, or if they don't get what they want. So I guess that makes us even.

Zonk,

I don't really like what they've done with Ginger's Ale House. Ginger's had a great feel to it, and the food was terrific. AJ Hudson's is basically like any other sports bar you'd find on Clark St. I hate the renovations, though they did give me & a friend free shots of whiskey after we cleaned out their selection of Schlitz (I guess we were doing them a favor!).

I'm currently partial to the Long Room on Irving & Ashland and Gingerman's on Clark & Racine. Gingerman's has IMO the best jukebox in the city. Long Room has a great selection of beers. They don't have a jukebox, but they're usually playing 80s/90s indie college rock which is OK with me. We went to Keenan O'Reilly's for the first time last weekend. Beer is cheap, ceiling is about 6 feet high, we liked it. I want to check out Ten Cat Tavern soon.

When I'm near Belmont & Sheffield I like Vaughn's, Cooper's or Schubas.

I don't really like what they've done with Ginger's Ale House. Ginger's had a great feel to it, and the food was terrific. AJ Hudson's is basically like any other sports bar you'd find on Clark St. I hate the renovations, though they did give me & a friend free shots of whiskey after we cleaned out their selection of Schlitz (I guess we were doing them a favor!).

Gingers was getting a little decrepit, though - and if you're not going to go full on dive, you've got to clean the place up once in a while. My understanding is that the former co-owners (just the Irish guy owns now, I believe) had a rather nasty falling out. I still think the food is pretty good - though, I don't know that I ate there often enough when it was Ginger's to make a valid comparison.

Its main draw for me is really stumble distance home - not much luck convincing many of my friends to make it a destination (and I'll certainly admit it's not a big enough draw to try), but it's a perfectly cromulent place for a drink during the week or for a random nightcap.

Gingerman is pretty much my go-to meetup place for meeting friends before shows at the Metro. We hung out there with Cults after their Metro show a few weeks ago. I've not been to Ginger's since the change, though we used to go there quite a bit for early morning soccer games. I'm probably better off without the Irish breakfast, but it was pretty damn good. I actually don't go to Schuba's all that much unless I'm there for a show, but that's probably 10-12 times per year.