Chicago Bears owners have plan to build a $2B something somewhere

The Chicago Bears rumors started early this morning:

The Bears are shifting their focus to remain in the City of Chicago with plans to build a new stadium south of Soldier Field, a source familiar with the team’s plan told ESPN.

Hadn’t we heard that already? I’m pretty sure we heard that already … yep, last week. Wake me when there’s an actual announcement. Oh, what’s that you say?

The Chicago Bears are prepared to provide $2 billion in private funding for a new publicly owned enclosed stadium and park space in the city, the team confirmed Monday. … As proposed, the new stadium would be in the area of Waldron Drive, just south of the Bears’ current home at Soldier Field.

That’s slightly confusing: The Bears owners would spend $2 billion, but the stadium would be publicly owned? So it wouldn’t pay property taxes, presumably, but would the team pay any rent for the city land? And how much would the total cost be, and would the city and/or state be asked to chip in? Let’s go look at the actual full team statement:

“The Chicago Bears are committed to contributing over $2 billion to build a stadium and improve open spaces for all families, fans and the general public to enjoy in the City of Chicago. The future stadium of the Chicago Bears will bring a transformative opportunity to our region—boosting the economy, creating jobs, facilitating mega events and generating millions in tax revenue. We look forward to sharing more information when our plans are finalized.”

That doesn’t actually say anything at all about a lakefront site just south of Soldier Field, though that would certainly qualify as “in the City of Chicago.” And in addition to providing no real financial details other than that the Bears would put up $2 billion out of something for something, it doesn’t explain how an NFL-size stadium would fit on the very narrow site south of the existing stadium — especially if the team would “maintain parking in the south lot,” as ESPN reported but the team statement also didn’t say.

It’s all a very weird kind of non-announcement, though certainly on brand for sports team execs who want to get people all excited about the fun parts (Bears staying in Chicago! More open space!) before getting into the messy details about money or space constraints. One hopes some more details will be released soon, but that “sharing more information when our plans are finalized” isn’t exactly promising. Looks like John Fisher isn’t the only one who likes starting out with word renderings.

Other Recent Posts:

Share this post:

11 comments on “Chicago Bears owners have plan to build a $2B something somewhere

  1. I firmly believe the Bears will get their money from Chicago (Mayor Johnson has said as much) and the state of Illinois (sure Pritzer kinda waffled on giving them money, but he’ll end up doing it). And we the taxpayers will be told how “wonderful” this deal is…no mention of WHY it’s in the public’s interest to give a Billion dollar organization free money.

    1. Because “$2 billion in private funding”! And “millions in tax revenue”! Are you feeling warm and fuzzy yet?

  2. Interesting that there’s no shiny renderings to accompany the press release.

    I guess if you build the stadium with its southern edge where the southern edge of the Waldron parking deck is then you could open up some space to the north (where the current stadium is), which would help with crowds entering/exiting. I wonder if they’d have to play somewhere else while the new stadium is being built? Maybe they can learn from Northwestern how not to approach that scenario. At least they learned from the Sox how not to announce a request for public funding.

    1. I’ve never driven to a Bears game, so forgive me if this is wrong, but the Waldron deck couldn’t support a stadium, could it? So they would have to demolish it, then build a stadium … between the southern edge of the current stadium and the South Lot? That doesn’t look like enough room to me.

      1. I doubt it could be built over the top of the Waldron Deck. It certainly wouldn’t be practical to do so. I see it the same way, they would have to demolish at least part of the current stadium to build the new stadium. Maybe they could rotate it so the field run NW/SE to avoid the current stadium? I’m fascinated to see how they plan to make this work.

  3. So long as the new facility maintains a shade over the east grandstand to protect fans from sunstroke during the frequent and all important 6am local kickoffs, I’ll be happy.

    Do “they” still have to maintain the east entrance structure or has that been deemed no longer worthy of protection after the rebuild?

  4. Why didn’t they think of this in 2003? Did we just not think of such things in 2003? What has changed so drastically in 20 years?

    1. Soldier Field was still on the National Register of Historic Places in 2003, right?

  5. All of this begs the real question: Why is the one club in the NFL’s largest single-team market begging for a government-funded stadium in the city of Chicago when said club has spent $200 million to acquire Arlington Park in the suburbs?
    Local Chicago news sites (non-ESPN) report that the Bears are back to haggling with the town of Arlington Heights over property taxes for Arlington Park. In other words, this filthy rich sportsball franchise doesn’t want to pay taxes on anything. The blowback from such a deal can topple a government or two.

Comments are closed.