New Advertising at Wrigley

[1060Ivy]

Here's a picture of the structure from another blog - bleed cubbie blue. Take a look at what the fuss is all about. It doesn't appear that the plywood will make it through the winter. http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/214872/b...hers112309a.JPG

I'm fine with Ricketts selling additional advertising space at Wrigley but from the look of the what's in place that is not the intent of the plywood. It looks like they just want to block the Horseshow roof next door. Hopefully, the matter will be taken care of before next season.

[vitaminB]

<!--quoteo(post=70089:date=Nov 24 2009, 07:14 AM:name=1060Ivy)-->QUOTE (1060Ivy @ Nov 24 2009, 07:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Here's a picture of the structure from another blog - bleed cubbie blue. Take a look at what the fuss is all about. It doesn't appear that the plywood will make it through the winter. http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/214872/b...hers112309a.JPG

I'm fine with Ricketts selling additional advertising space at Wrigley but from the look of the what's in place that is not the intent of the plywood. It looks like they just want to block the Horseshow roof next door. Hopefully, the matter will be taken care of before next season.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

And in more shocking news apparently Aaron Miles attracts and feeds rats.

[rok]

<!--quoteo(post=70089:date=Nov 24 2009, 06:14 AM:name=1060Ivy)-->QUOTE (1060Ivy @ Nov 24 2009, 06:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Here's a picture of the structure from another blog - bleed cubbie blue. Take a look at what the fuss is all about. It doesn't appear that the plywood will make it through the winter. http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/214872/b...hers112309a.JPG

I'm fine with Ricketts selling additional advertising space at Wrigley but from the look of the what's in place that is not the intent of the plywood. It looks like they just want to block the Horseshow roof next door. Hopefully, the matter will be taken care of before next season.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It definitely looks temporary, but not really wide enough to block the entire building. Someone needs to set fire to that place.

[jstraw]

<!--quoteo(post=70089:date=Nov 24 2009, 06:14 AM:name=1060Ivy)-->QUOTE (1060Ivy @ Nov 24 2009, 06:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Here's a picture of the structure from another blog - bleed cubbie blue. Take a look at what the fuss is all about. It doesn't appear that the plywood will make it through the winter. http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/214872/b...hers112309a.JPG

I'm fine with Ricketts selling additional advertising space at Wrigley but from the look of the what's in place that is not the intent of the plywood. It looks like they just want to block the Horseshow roof next door. Hopefully, the matter will be taken care of before next season.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Interesting. That's clearly not a permanent structure...which begs several questions. Who would pay real money to put ads on THAT? Who cares about the view of the Horseshoe roof during the offseason?

It looks like a placeholder or a warning of what could go up before opening day. In other words, it looks like a negotiating position. In OTHER words, how much would Horseshow/building owner pay to see that plywood come down...or how much would you sell us your useless building for now?

[Ace]

I just want to state affirmatively that I have absolutely no thoughts or positions on this issue, and I merely serve as a moderator and administrator on this board.


(don't ask)

[kbwsb]

<!--quoteo(post=70178:date=Nov 25 2009, 05:20 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Nov 25 2009, 05:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I just want to state affirmatively that I have absolutely no thoughts or positions on this issue, and I merely serve as a moderator and administrator on this board.
(don't ask)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
WTF ?

[jstraw]

<!--quoteo(post=70179:date=Nov 25 2009, 05:25 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Nov 25 2009, 05:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=70178:date=Nov 25 2009, 05:20 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Nov 25 2009, 05:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I just want to state affirmatively that I have absolutely no thoughts or positions on this issue, and I merely serve as a moderator and administrator on this board.
(don't ask)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
WTF ?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Seriously. Who got to you...the Stepfords or the Body Snatchers?

[rok]

This was expected.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/2107...gn17web.article
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->The Cubs filed a permit application this week for a "projecting, illuminated" billboard rising high above the left-field bleachers that has the potential to rake in big bucks from advertisers at the expense of offending purists.

But, there's a problem. The 75 foot high, 360 square foot billboard has raised the eyebrows of local Ald. Tom Tunney (44th). And it may not pass muster with the Commission on Historical Landmarks, which must decide whether new signage conforms with Wrigley's landmark designation.

"There's been signage allowed in the ballpark under the landmark ordinance. But, this is a different level of advertising that's a lot less discrete. It's actually coming out of the left-center bleachers," Tunney said.

"I'm not sure how well received it's gonna be. The fact that it's a free-standing sign is challenging. And I'm concerned if you put up one, you might put up more."

Tunney noted that the 2004 ordinance that authorized a bleacher expansion and landmarked "historic elements" of Wrigley took pains to "integrate the field into the neighborhood and make it part of the vista."

"We were very concerned about the way the bleachers didn't block the view of the neighborhood. This [new billboard] is in the way," he said.

Peter Strazzabosco, a spokesman for the city's Department of Zoning and Land-Use Planning, said the permit application was filed Monday after the Cubs discussed "several hypothetical scenarios" with Landmarks Preservation staffers.

"Staff did indicate in general that it would be concerned with the visual impact of any proposed signage on the historic character of the ballpark -- both its exterior and interior. But, no determinations have been made. It's under review," he said.

Jim Peters, president of Landmarks Illinois, added, "There's a way that some signage can go in there [tastefully]. But, it's all a question of design, height, scale and placement."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Coach]

Why are we on the Historical Landmark thing?

[1060Ivy]

As most folks know this isn't about landmark BS, it will eventually come down to the Cubs ability to block the rooftop owner views or views of other advertisers e.g. Horseshoe Casino sign.

Can we get another year of tarps on the outfield walls and pissed off rooftop club operators fighting a PR battle in the Tribune and SunTimes?

[rok]

<!--quoteo(post=83040:date=Mar 17 2010, 09:59 AM:name=Coach)-->QUOTE (Coach @ Mar 17 2010, 09:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Why are we on the Historical Landmark thing?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe the scoreboard, marquee and the outfield walls are landmarked. All else is up for interpretation.

[Coach]

<!--quoteo(post=83043:date=Mar 17 2010, 11:50 AM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Mar 17 2010, 11:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=83040:date=Mar 17 2010, 09:59 AM:name=Coach)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coach @ Mar 17 2010, 09:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Why are we on the Historical Landmark thing?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe the scoreboard, marquis and the outfield walls are landmarked. All else is up for interpretation.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Didn't this happen as a way to get state funds to help renovate some areas?
Did we ask for this declaration?

[jstraw]

Remind me why I should care about the rooftops.

I take the architectural integrity thing pretty seriously but I think the lights were handled beautifully. It can be done.

[rok]

<!--quoteo(post=83044:date=Mar 17 2010, 11:00 AM:name=Coach)-->QUOTE (Coach @ Mar 17 2010, 11:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=83043:date=Mar 17 2010, 11:50 AM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Mar 17 2010, 11:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=83040:date=Mar 17 2010, 09:59 AM:name=Coach)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coach @ Mar 17 2010, 09:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Why are we on the Historical Landmark thing?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe the scoreboard, marquee and the outfield walls are landmarked. All else is up for interpretation.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Didn't this happen as a way to get state funds to help renovate some areas?
Did we ask for this declaration?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://cubs.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=2...sp&c_id=chc
It happened in 2004, and the team did not support or ask for landmark status. I believe the process was initiated by the neighborhood to prevent expansion of parts of the ballpark and protect area interests.

[ruby23]

Put the sign on the casino rooftop.