Cubs Move? Hope It Never Happens (Chicago, Rosemont: houses, buy, schools)

[Ace Rothstein]

Originally Posted by ChiNaan

I have, multiple times. What makes it not a suburb to you? Too close to the city? Too poor? Not white enough? None of those things make a place not a suburb. (Many of Chicago's suburbs are one or more of those things. Some are all three.) Being outside of a metro area or being a part of the core city are the only things that do that. Newark is neither.

Newark is a city in and of itself. It has no suburban qualities. There are nearly 300k people there and it has the same population density of Chicago. Just because it lies outside of one of the biggest cities in the world doesn't make it a suburb. How many suburbs have their own light rail system?

[Lucky Clover]

Originally Posted by RH3Flatlander

I'm not a Cubs fan, but I do like going to Wrigley occasionally. To me, I'd almost rather the Cubs move then lose the rooftops across the street. To me, the best part of attending a game at Wrigley Field (besides the scenery) is sitting in the upper deck and looking out over the field, ivy, bleachers, and then beyond to the rooftops, and Lakeview skyline. No other stadium in sports has as original or as cool a skyline, IMO.

Sure a rehabed Wrigley would have the same amenities that a rehabed Fenway has, but to me, losing the rooftops would remove a substantial portion of Wrigley's ambience for the casual fan. That said, if I'm a Cubs fan, I want whatever the team feels is best for putting the most competitive product on the field, even if that means moving to a different site.

PNC Park.

[ChiNaan]

Originally Posted by Ace Rothstein

Newark is a city in and of itself.

Correct-- one that is a part of another city's metropolitan area. There is a word to describe such cities, as it turns out, so I used it. Seemed so simple at the time.

[NoJiveMan]

Originally Posted by ChiNaan

Eminent domain could be used. It wouldn't be popular, but also not unprecedented. Talk to the people who lost their homes and businesses in the heart of Brooklyn so the Barclays Center could be built. That area was perhaps not yet quite as gentrified as Lakeview, but it was well on its way, and land in NYC is more expensive in general than in Chicago, anyway.

Well, when you speak of eminent domain, you got me thinking this.

OK, let's say the Ricketts take up the Rosemont mayor's offer, but, the monkey wrench in this would be, they'd still be called the Chicago Cubs, and not the Rosemont Cubs. {who ever has heard of Rosemont besides locals?}
I'm thinking the Cub owner/s are definitely going to have their hand$ out, looking to capitalize on royaltie$.

I have no idea of property values in NYC, but I could barely afford to buy a gallon of diesel fuel when I passed through there 7 years ago.

I don't think Chicago city officials would ever hear the end of it, if the Cubs were to relocate. Citizens would be in a super uproar, IMO.

[Ace Rothstein]

Originally Posted by ChiNaan

Correct-- one that is a part of another city's metropolitan area. There is a word to describe such cities, as it turns out, so I used it. Seemed so simple at the time.

So Ft. Worth is a suburb of Dallas? Oakland is a suburb of San Francisco? Not every metropolitan area only has one large city.

[reppin_the_847]

Similar to Newark, one can ask if Hammond and Gary (Indiana) are suburbs of Chicago. Sure, there are plenty of folks that commute from these towns to Chicago, but I'd say the NW Indiana industrial regions near the lake pretty much stand on their own. They're urban in nature and not suburban bedroom communities. They're more like the satellite cities of Chicago which sometimes happen to have a few suburban neighborhoods sandwiched in (think Joliet, Aurora, Elgin, Waukegan, etc.).

Originally Posted by Ace Rothstein

So Ft. Worth is a suburb of Dallas? Oakland is a suburb of San Francisco? Not every metropolitan area only has one large city.

[NoJiveMan]

Originally Posted by reppin_the_847

Similar to Newark, one can ask if Hammond and Gary (Indiana) are suburbs of Chicago. Sure, there are plenty of folks that commute from these towns to Chicago, but I'd say the NW Indiana industrial regions near the lake pretty much stand on their own. They're urban in nature and not suburban bedroom communities. They're more like the satellite cities of Chicago which sometimes happen to have a few suburban neighborhoods sandwiched in (think Joliet, Aurora, Elgin, Waukegan, etc.).

You haven't gone far enough, some people think Kenosha is a suburb of Chicago, really, I'm not kidding.
We do have the Metra North Line, Kenosha is the last stop north.

Metra Union Pacific North (UP-N) Schedule

There are people who reside here and commute everyday to the loop.

[reppin_the_847]

Yeah that is true. I believe Kenosha is counted as part of the metro area...perhaps the statistical area. Even more people from Kenosha & Pleasant Prairie commute to employment sites in Lake County, Illinois although I'm sure some brave souls do commute to the Loop.

Originally Posted by NoJiveMan

You haven't gone far enough, some people think Kenosha is a suburb of Chicago, really, I'm not kidding.
We do have the Metra North Line, Kenosha is the last stop north.

Metra Union Pacific North (UP-N) Schedule

There are people who reside here and commute everyday to the loop.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by RH3Flatlander

I'm not a Cubs fan, but I do like going to Wrigley occasionally. To me, I'd almost rather the Cubs move then lose the rooftops across the street. To me, the best part of attending a game at Wrigley Field (besides the scenery) is sitting in the upper deck and looking out over the field, ivy, bleachers, and then beyond to the rooftops, and Lakeview skyline. No other stadium in sports has as original or as cool a skyline, IMO.

Sure a rehabed Wrigley would have the same amenities that a rehabed Fenway has, but to me, losing the rooftops would remove a substantial portion of Wrigley's ambience for the casual fan. That said, if I'm a Cubs fan, I want whatever the team feels is best for putting the most competitive product on the field, even if that means moving to a different site.

Just curious, did you attend Cubs games at Wrigley before the rooftop "infrastructure" was installed?

I've been going to games since the epic 23-22 loss to the Phillies in 1979 (prior to that we went to Sox games as they gave free tickets to schools all the time).

At no time have I ever heard expressed that the rooftop seats were an improvement. Back then it was a bunch of dudes with folding chairs and a cooler full of Old Styles, and maybe a rickety Weber grill. Plenty of ambience, and opened up the view. I don't really have anything against the rooftop owners, but really, they are 100% peripheral to issues regarding Wrigley and the neighborhood in the long haul (and I do think Tunney should be indicted, that clown must have gotten thousands from those owners).

If the Cubs had had a lick of sense they would bought out that block back then, I'm at least glad they are going a crappy McDonald's / parking lot into something more productive and beneficial.

[Ace Rothstein]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

If the Cubs had had a lick of sense they would bought out that block back then, I'm at least glad they are going a crappy McDonald's / parking lot into something more productive and beneficial.

Yup, never understood why the Cubs didn't try to buy up the rooftop buildings. It is possible that they did but you'd think they would have had a few successes at some point.