In a book on the history of ballparks I was reading that the cubs, or whatever team they used to be called way back when. They played ball in the old West side grounds. I'm making an observation that something similar to that park and location would be the only legitimate way to truly replace Wrigley Field. It would have to be a complete throwback and yet have some characteristics of Wrigley. I know tons of people would probably disagree because of the scene in Wrigleyville, but it just might be able to be re-created in the suburbs and with a few more conveniences.Does this make sense to anyone? Can you say: today's attendance 65,252 What an awesome spectacle it could create.
2006-08-10
16:44:35
·
14 answers
·
asked by
mannymota
2