WR has been stripped to the bones. . . .
- Thread starter Max_Power
- Start date
Thanks for the pic. From the architectural design review drawings, all that will be reused are the girders and North and South facades. Everything else is brand, spanking new.
I would guess 90% of the building will be new.
Credit where credit is due, picture is from NU Volleyball Coach Shane Davis on twitter.
Fabulous! I can already picture those 6,800 bodies being packed into that place.
They would have had the same demolition cost to this point if they planned to completely raze the building and start from scratch. There would be no cost savings, in fact it would cost more to tear down the remainder of the building and erect new steel. Apparently they wanted to maintain some sort of historic feeling, a la Ryan Field, the Wrigley Field of college football.
How come the court won't be placed north-south instead of east-west? Seems like if it were N-S, you would have more seats along each sideline closer to the floor.
I am guessing, but maybe there are more regulatory hurdles to jump if you want to demolish and rebuild instead of renovating?
from what i understand it was all foundational and what it would take to remove the steel beams from the ground and then re-do appropiate foundations would have taken on a monumental project
I'M NOT TO PLEASED WITH THE SLOGAN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PICTURE
I thought I heard that using the existing steel structure allowed a shorter construction time and so they would be back with only on year away, otherwise maybe 2 seasons in another location. Also, some cost savings too, especially if you are not trying to increase capacity
I think you are right digging into the foundation and then rebuilding it is a big job. Probably more complex engineering than most of us know, a foundation to support a structure that holds 7,000 people safely must be complicated.
The open air design will cut down on AC expenses and global warming should handle the heating
Last edited:
The party line about the smaller attendance and "why renovate" is similar to the fable that we STHs heard for years about why they couldn't replace the Lite Brite scoreboard. Whatever they say, it is always about money. They'll say they wanted to preserve tradition or "why waste all that good steel" or "it would be really difficult to dig that out" but it's all PC talk and spin.
Not that there's anything wrong with 6,800 seats or renovation, but let's not fall into the trap yet again. We all have our budgets at home and they have theirs at NU. Like the illustrious philosopher Virginia Wildcat once wrote, "It is what it is."
Hopefully, Ryan Field will never become a Historic landmark. Wrigley sucks bad for fans. Sightlines are awful, and it's just a maze of concrete instead of the awesome open air concourses of new stadiums that other fans thoroughly enjoy. Never mind the piss rooms. The place sucked for football as well. From my perspective, I don't see us being compared to Wrigley as a good thing unless someone is into historical sights. At any rate, NU "The Harvard of the Midwest" is a compliment.
Well, Rutgers is the Illinois of the East.....
Sorry Turk, I'll have to disagree with you on beautiful and historic Wrigley Field. Now if yo what talk about a ugly ballpark look no further then the mostly empty, taxpayers funded, concrete mess on the south side. If your upset with "piss rooms" , you need to look no further then good old Ryan Field, although the outhouses at Duke may actually be worse.
The Michigan fight song, "Hail to the Victors", until recently contained the phrase, "The Harvard of the West"
Just curious as to where the team is working out this summer? and I am with TUrk on the Wrigley Field deal. Guess it depends on what you are looking for.....Wriggley is great as an experience or a sentimental journey, bath yourself if the past etc.......but I really enjoy the southside.....walking the concourse with space etc....great food....lots of room in the parking lot to tailgate......and I am neither a Sox or Cub fan
But a postscript...I used to skip a lot of classes at LU to hop the EL for .45 and sit in the bleachers for a buck ....sit close to Bill Veeck and his buddies....not that was an education!.
But a postscript...I used to skip a lot of classes at LU to hop the EL for .45 and sit in the bleachers for a buck ....sit close to Bill Veeck and his buddies....not that was an education!.
Just a reminder, there is a lot of room to wander and park at "taxpayers park" because no one goes there.
Interesting that in your analysis, you don't mention which is better for actually watching a baseball game. I find Wrigley much superior on that criterion, and it is more important than all the others combined.
I would disagree...I am usually so uncomfortable at Wrigley as well as it takes 3 innings to get up and get a beer and 3 innings to get rid of a beer. I will admit when the new Sox park first opened I was scared to death sitting in the upper deck. Back in the day enjoyed sitting in the bleachers at Wriggly but now they are so packed and not a very knowledgeable baseball crowd and the throwing back of the opponents ball is bush...and shows a lack of respect for the opponent and the game,,,,but that's just me...and is also probably from back in the day
I find the Wrigley/Guaranteed Rate or whatever you call it debate is much overhyped with stereotypes and hyperbole.
There won't be concourses more crowded than Wrigley. But, if you want a beer, just grab a vendor. Or, the beer portable stands will get you in and out between half innings. Don't go to concession stands at Wrigley, and except for bathroom lines, you can pretty much avoid the concourse chaos.
The concourses at White Sox games are open because there are no fans. When its sold out, its also mayhem trying to get anywhere, and their lines are probably just as long. Additionally, the white sox in game entertainment is meant to take your attention everywhere but the game.
If you take the el, they are both easier to get to than driving. However, if you drive to wrigley and know where to go, you can park MUCH cheaper than the $25 a game the sox charge.
Wrigley probably has a higher proportion of really good seats, but the Sox have fewer bad seats.
Food and beer options clearly favor the Sox, but if you're going to a game looking for a craft beer, I think you're doing it wrong. Of course, that's purely personal.
They're different. Its a totally different environment. I think the :"drunk cubs man" stereotype is totally misplaced outside of the bleachers. Wrigley is far more jovial, but I think a lot of that is there are simply more vacationers, tourists, and general wealth.
There are things to enjoy about both, but I think criticism of anything except for the bathroom lines and the 200 level seats in the back at Wrigley is all because of bias. The problems are easy to navigate, and its always a lively, good time.
There won't be concourses more crowded than Wrigley. But, if you want a beer, just grab a vendor. Or, the beer portable stands will get you in and out between half innings. Don't go to concession stands at Wrigley, and except for bathroom lines, you can pretty much avoid the concourse chaos.
The concourses at White Sox games are open because there are no fans. When its sold out, its also mayhem trying to get anywhere, and their lines are probably just as long. Additionally, the white sox in game entertainment is meant to take your attention everywhere but the game.
If you take the el, they are both easier to get to than driving. However, if you drive to wrigley and know where to go, you can park MUCH cheaper than the $25 a game the sox charge.
Wrigley probably has a higher proportion of really good seats, but the Sox have fewer bad seats.
Food and beer options clearly favor the Sox, but if you're going to a game looking for a craft beer, I think you're doing it wrong. Of course, that's purely personal.
They're different. Its a totally different environment. I think the :"drunk cubs man" stereotype is totally misplaced outside of the bleachers. Wrigley is far more jovial, but I think a lot of that is there are simply more vacationers, tourists, and general wealth.
There are things to enjoy about both, but I think criticism of anything except for the bathroom lines and the 200 level seats in the back at Wrigley is all because of bias. The problems are easy to navigate, and its always a lively, good time.
guess we just disagree on this one. I really am a baseball fan and have seen great players and games at both places including old Comisky . Today I enjoy watching a game more at Guaranteed Whatever. Happy for my Cub fan friends just find their park still crowded and more of an event. Sox fans are sad and disgruntled but are now old school Cub fans and watch the game with a discerning unapproving eye. Maybe the losing fan is the better purist fan at the moment?
Best way to enjoy Wrigley IMO is to sit in the upper deck. Great views, not too far removed from the field, and even during sellouts the lines aren't bad, especially if you get drinks from the patio behind home plate. Just be careful you don't sit behind a post if you're in the reserved sections, and be ready for a very slow-moving walk to the exits when the game ends.
As for the Rate, the stereotypes about it being a massive concrete dump stopped being true several years ago when they renovated. It's a nice, comfortable place to watch a baseball game, with great food and beverage options - and yes, it's pretty easy to move around on most nights.
I've had my season tickets in the upper deck, 1st row for 23 years and like it a lot, including the back patio. Just don't see a lot to like about the Southside park, other then the food.
