Are Wrigley Field's days numbered, and if so, are you happy to hear it?

Tweet

One of the reporters of the Tribune (Rick Morrissey) wrote a controversial piece last week regarding the inevitability that Wrigley Field will more than likely get an extreme makeover relatively soon. He claimed it was a good thing, for the place isn't as canonical as everyone seems to believe. First off, I can't believe he'd write such a piece, especially given the fact that the Tribune owns the Chicago Cubs. But seriously, what a dumb thing to say! Wrigley Field is the second oldest ballpark in all of baseball. I think it's definitely canonical, and an iconic figure of what baseball is supposed to be. Nowadays, most fields have the look and the feel of a large shopping mall, but instead of having a food court in the middle, there's a baseball diamond. I feel virtually nothing when strolling through the new parks. But, Wrigley, man, I get goosebumps just walking through the place. It's what baseball is all about, right down to the troughs in the men's bathroom. It'd kill me to see the man operated scoreboard in centerfield be replaced by a digital jumbotron. I don't want to see the ivy replaced by a bunch of digital corporate ads, nor do I care if the bathrooms are immaculate. In little league, and now, softball, the bathrooms are disgusting. Why should pro ball be any different. That's just baseball. Vendors shouldn't be holed up in some fancy facade that resembles an outlet mall. They should be in the open with nothing more than a cart or trailer on wheels. That's baseball. I think most of these new parks are taking away from the game with their swimming pools and luxurious hotel suites. The fan experience isn't about what's in the park, it's about what's going on in the park, and that's the ball game, period. Yeah, I know Wrigley is old, but that adds to the personality of the place. What do you people think of Wrigley, and what particular aspects do you especially enjoy in your respective ball parks?