Cubs prevail in a fair deal for Wrigley Field
Is it possible a happy ending is upon us in the never-ending saga over Wrigley Field renovations? It sure looks that way. For five years, this editorial page railed against any proposal for renovating Wrigley that included a major assist from taxpayers. That view prevailed in April, when the mayor and Ald. Tom Tunney brokered a deal with the Cubs that included no oversized public subsidy.
After months of negotiations, the heart of that deal — two massive outfield signs — were approved late Thursday by the landmarks commission during a highly charged meeting. The Cubs, at Tunney’s request, slightly reduced the size of both signs, though the alderman argued emotionally that they were still too large and would dramatically affect “the quality of life for my residents.”
Our sympathy for Tunney and local residents goes only so far. The Cubs have come a long way from the days when they were courting a public subsidy. Here’s the latest: The Cubs now plan to compensate the city for taking over a sidewalk and a lane of traffic as they extend the park outward. Previously, the Cubs had demanded a giveaway. The only remaining question is whether they’ll pay for air rights for a pedestrian bridge they want to build over Clark Street.
In exchange for a deal that includes no public subsidy, the Cubs should be allowed great leeway in how they renovate the ballpark. We say this confident that the Cubs’ owners know better than anyone that transforming charming Wrigley Field — a better ticket seller than the players themselves — into Times Square would be a bad idea.
But the concerns of residents should not be ignored. Tunney wants the Cubs to drop the pedestrian bridge and to limit the hotel’s impact on a nearby residential street. Part of what draws fans to Wrigley is its location in a neighborhood, a real one, where real people live. The Cubs should do everything they can to keep them there.