You would have thought that the expanded bleachers at Wrigley Field, with high new prices and brazenly commercialized name, would have incensed fans and critics. But really, except for a few squeaks from the Sun-Times (you weren’t expecting the Trib guys to bite that particular hand, were you?) and a presence in the blogosphere, not much. As with so many of life’s disappointments, it’s made more sense to accept it and move on.
One of the best things about Wrigley Field has been its total absence of anything approximating flash. The friendliness of the confines has always been a lot more apparent within than without, and the who-cares appearance of the bleacher entrance summed up the extravagantly beloved, retrograde sensibility of the place.
So why has the renovation failed to generate a lot more hostility? The naming rights issue is no longer even an issue to any sports fan who’s been paying attention the last couple of decades. At Wrigley Field, it’s particularly moot, considering how the ballpark got its name in the first place Another reason: the non-dramatic nature of it all. Although from the street you’re aware of more height and bulk, the center field entrance is so minimal that you almost don’t realize it’s different. (At least as long as you don’t pay attention to the sign.)
If you have traveled to a Brewers game or visited the Cardinals new ball park, you see what attempting to create the “traditional” in sports arenas means today, and you can imagine the kind of stage set could have gone up at the corner of Waveland and Sheffield. Instead, the suits in the Tribune Tower evidently followed the great architect Mies van der Rohe’s maxim, and accomplished more with less. These guys get so little praise for anything, they should be cited for doing something right. So, holla to Andy McPhail and the gang.