MacPhail: 2003 renovations unlikely
City still working with team on landmark status issue

10/16/2002

By Carrie Muskat / MLB.com

Andy MacPhail said some things are untouchable in renovations, like the Wrigley Field marquee. (J. Swart/AP)

The Chicago Cubs want to expand the bleacher section at Wrigley Field to provide additional revenue to the ballclub. The City of Chicago wants to declare the ballpark a historic landmark, which would restrict changes, including expansion. The rooftop owners, many of whom have built their own seating and sell tickets independently of the baseball team, don't want their views blocked by any expansion.
The issues are intertwined, and the team's proposed changes of the 88-year-old stadium are postponed indefinitely. Cubs team president and CEO Andy MacPhail recently discussed the status of the Wrigley Field's renovations with MLB.com.

"It is a unique ballpark and I think we all understand the treasure that we have here," MacPhail said, "and we all have a responsibility to preserve those elements to make the ballpark special."

MLB.com: Where are the Cubs now in terms of their renovation plans?

MacPhail: The city has made it known that they would like to landmark Wrigley Field. In the event the ballpark is landmarked, no -- and I mean no -- changes can be made without going through a landmark commission approval process. And that can be anything as rudimentary as changing seats, just upgrading the seats, which we do from year to year.

No ballpark in America is landmarked to my knowledge and the reason is basically because ballparks have to evolve with the times to satisfy their fans' needs. Wrigley Field has gone through many transformations over its history. As you can imagine, we're not enthusiastic about the idea of being landmarked.

MLB.com: And that's not because you don't feel Wrigley Field is something to be preserved?

MacPhail: We've been very careful to preserve the park and it's one of the reasons it's one of the two oldest parks in existence. We want to preserve the character of it. We've added a mezzanine level that didn't exist before and we've added lights that didn't exist before and they've all been done in a very tasteful fashion that is in sync with the character of Wrigley Field.

While we're not enthusiastic about being landmarked, we recognize that there are certain aspects of the park that should not be changed -- the marquee outside, the scoreboard, the ivy on the walls. There isn't much debate in anyone's mind that there are certain aspects of the ballpark that need to be preserved. To that extent we are willing to listen but we are unhappy about the prospect of having any changes go through layers of bureaucratic governance that would slow down any improvements of the park.

MLB.com: So the meeting regarding landmark status has been postponed?

MacPhail: Yes. We've been discussing with the city very specifically the extent of the landmarking, what would be covered, what wouldn't be covered, what would require approval, what wouldn't. The reason the agreement keeps getting extended is because we keep trudging our way towards trying to reach an understanding.

MLB.com: In a perfect world, Wrigley Field would have landmark status but you could still make changes as needed?

MacPhail: You would think that there would be a solution there that could satisfy people truly interested in preserving the character of the ballpark but still would allow it to evolve with the times.

MLB.com: Discussions regarding renovations are strictly between the Cubs and the city?

MacPhail: That is correct.

MLB.com: And they have nothing to do with the rooftop owners?

MacPhail: Other than the fact that the rooftops have certainly embraced the idea of landmark status as being one that would forever preserve their ability to pirate our product and not have their views encumbered and handcuff us as to making changes that we think would enhance the experience our fans would have coming to what is our most popular seat, and that's the ones in the bleachers.

MLB.com: The original plan was to expand the bleachers by 2,800 seats?

MacPhail: Actually, it was originally 2,600 and we went down to 2,100 and then went down to 1,980. So we have made modification after modification in trying to get something done.

MLB.com: Would adding 1,980 seats really make that much difference income-wise?

MacPhail: It would help economically. It would also give the opportunity, while you're adding the seats, to add different amenities and services that don't exist now. You'd enhance the experience of your fans going out there. It would be a tasteful revenue opportunity for us that I think would enhance the fun that the fans have out in the bleachers.

MLB.com: Can you get something done in time to make changes for next season?

MacPhail: I think it's unlikely that you'd see any changes for '03 at this stage.

MLB.com: If you don't get approval for bleacher expansion, would the Cubs face a dire economic situation?

MacPhail: You're just trying to some degree to keep up with the Joneses. We're in a division where every one of our opponents either has a new stadium or has a new one coming on line here. Ours was built in 1914. There are no microbreweries in right field, no super suites. None of the restaurants are revenue opportunities that exist bountifully in other new ballparks. It's just a different kettle of fish. We don't have access to the parking revenue that most stadiums have.

We voluntarily haven't advertised to any great extent here, which is another source of revenue that is unavailable to us. We have the third smallest capacity in the game. You're just trying to find ways where you can evolve with the times.

MLB.com: What about selling Wrigley Field's naming rights?

MacPhail: There has been to this point no serious discussion about naming rights. We always try to evaluate different opportunities that would be tasteful.

MLB.com: How would you describe the team's relationship with the rooftop owners?

MacPhail: We have a real fundamental disagreement to the extent that they are selling tickets to our product. Until we can come to some understanding on that very fundamental point, it's not likely that we'll reach an agreement.

MLB.com: Are the Cubs focusing more attention on the landmark issue and discussions with the city than the rooftop issue?

MacPhail: We try to do both. You recognize that you're making progress in some areas and not in others.

MLB.com: Will the windscreens be up on the outfield fences next year?

MacPhail: I'd like to think we can make a resolution where they weren't. The ideal solution is to negotiate a settlement where everyone is satisfied.

Carrie Muskat is a writer for MLB.com. This story was not subject to approval by Major League Baseball or its clubs.