Chicago Cubs

Wrigley Field

Chicago, IL

Year Opened: 1914

Capacity: 41,160

Grade: N/A Ranking: N/A

Disclaimer: Similar to Fenway Park,  I will say it’s grossly unfair to compare new parks to old parks. There is no way to objectively measure the unparalleled sense of history and authenticity of Wrigley Field. So I won’t go into as much detail regarding the architecture, and I’m not going to rate it or rank it!  If this seems like a copout, Wrigley Field would score somewhere in the 80s. But what does that mean?  

Rating a park that opened in 1916 based on 21st century standards doesn’t really tell us anything about the quality of the ballpark.  Unlike Fenway Park, Wrigley Field hasn’t undergone 21st century renovations, either.  It must be looked at solely in its historical context. You can have a conversation about Wrigley Field and Fenway Park (and while it’s not comparable, I’d add Dodger Stadium for these purposes), then you can talk about the other 27 ballparks in baseball.  

This article will be in the format of a photo essay, with detailed analysis posted along with the pictures. Again, I plan to write a specific article comparing Wrigley and Fenway.

NEXT - Setting

Scorecard:

Setting: N/A

Location/Access: N/A

Local Scene: N/A

Architecture & Aesthetics: N/A

Exterior Design: N/A

Interior Aesthetics: N/A

Panoramic View: N/A

Concourses: N/A

Functionality: N/A

Sightlines: N/A

Seat Comfort: N/A

Concourses: N/A

Scoreboard: N/A

Amenities: N/A

Concessions: N/A

Signature Food: N/A

Restaurants: N/A

Premium Services: N/A

Historic References: N/A

Entertainment: N/A

Miscellaneous: N/A

Atmosphere/Fans: N/A

Ballpark Policies: N/A

Bonus: N/A

Conclusion

Final Score: Old School