A landmark in deception :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Greg Couch
A landmark in deception
Cubs aren't plotting tiny changes if they want Wrigley's protection lifted
February 29, 2008
BY GREG COUCH Sun-Times Columnist
Selling the name of Wrigley Field is one thing, but dropping the landmark protection for a few minutes so Sam Zell can slap a coat of paint on the place, maybe add a few supporting beams for the old grandstand while keeping the grand ambience and romance in place?
Well, I'm going to call b.s. on the Cubs here.
They're trying to sneak something past you. We already know what Zell, the new Cubs owner looking to pay down Tribune Co.'s serious debt, thinks of that ambience: If he can sell it, sell the name of Wrigley, he'll do it. He made that clear the other day.
I'm not in favor of that, but the magic of Wrigley isn't in the name.
One thing I know for sure: If McDonald's buys the name, or United or anyone else, then that big, red sign out front is still going to be there, still going to say this: ''Wrigley Field. Home of Chicago Cubs.''
That sign is under landmark protection. So are the home-run wall, the old scoreboard, the general layout of the park's interior, and even the outside itself.
Yet the Cubs want the city to drop that landmark protection. Why?
''If you're going to restore and maintain the facility, you're going to have to take parts of it down and rebuild it, just like we rebuilt the bleachers two years ago,'' said Crane Kenney, who runs the Cubs for Tribune Co. ''Landmarking authorization doesn't let you do that.''
Look down, Crane. I think your pants are on fire.
Zell controls a lot more of Wrigley Field than just its name. And while he's trying to sell the team, consider the power any new owner might have on the place.
But despite landmarking authorization, as Kenney put it, the Cubs have expanded the bleachers, added a see-through wall on the street, fixed up the outside façade, added seats inside, put ads on the home-run wall. Any time the Cubs want to do anything, as long as it hasn't ruined the feel, the Chicago City Council has approved.
Upkeep is allowed already
It's clear the Commission on Chicago Landmarks, which makes recommendations to the council, has no problem allowing the Cubs to do what's necessary for upkeep, or even to increase revenues, as long as the magic isn't destroyed.
So now we're supposed to believe tearing down dilapidated grandstands for the purpose of rebuilding them is a problem? No way.
Landmark status is given to protect things that are important to us. So be careful when you hear the Cubs cry out that they want to keep the place all nice for the fans, but that gosh-darn landmark protection won't allow it.
Just drop your guard for a few minutes, turn your back, and the Cubs won't cause any damage.
Pants. Fire.
This is how awful this has become: The landmark status is now protecting Wrigley Field from the Cubs.
Sam Zell does not care about you, Cubs fans. It's nothing personal. It's business. And if he can get $400 million over 20 years to sell Wrigley's name, then what would you expect him to do?
Zell didn't invent this stuff. A few years ago, the Cubs tried to sneak in a little ticket-scalping scam on their own fans. They're not trying to hurt you. They're not thinking about you at all.
The only reason to drop the landmark designation is for major change.
Pete Scales of the city's department of planning said the landmark status doesn't prevent anyone from making improvements, fixing things up. And it hasn't been an issue in Boston, where the Red Sox have made major, approved changes while staying within the landmark designation of Fenway Park.
What if the Cubs decided to put up a massive, modern scoreboard by the left-field bleachers without touching the old scoreboard?
''An idea like that would certainly be under review by the landmarks division,'' Scales said.