So as discussed here earlier this week, the Chicago Bears owners have proposed spending $2 billion of their own money toward a $?? million stadium project just south of Soldier Field on the Chicago lakefront, with the rest of the money coming from ??. How’s that going over so far?
- Landmarks Illinois, which previously listed Soldier Field on its Most Endangered Historic Places the last time it faced a massive reconstruction: “We would not approve of a plan that demolishes the few remaining pieces of the original Soldier Field.”
- Friends of the Parks, which previously sued to block the development of a George Lucas museum on the lakefront under laws prohibiting development there: “We urge [the Bears to] find a way to stay home in a location that preserves our open, clear, and free lakefront.”
- Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, who previously said he was “really reluctant” to approve a White Sox stadium deal unless taxpayers could get a return on their investment: “That’s a good first step, but I haven’t heard a proposal that goes along with that $2 billion private investment that says that the state should be involved in anything. … Wealthy owners of sports teams – I respect that they run private businesses and they want them to be profitable, and they want constantly to provide better facilities for their customers. But I don’t think that should be the highest priority for the state of Illinois.”
That’s not a disaster yet for Bears management, but it’s certainly not the kind of groundswell they were hoping for when they announced plans to stay in city limits without telling Chicagoans how much it would cost them. In particular, having the governor somewhere short of lukewarm on helping to fund stadium plans could be a significant roadblock, given how vital governors have been in pushing other sports subsidy deals to completion before anyone can take too hard a look at them. There’s still an extremely long way to go for both the White Sox and Bears stadium proposals, but both teams’ owners are starting off at a relative disadvantage even before figuring out exactly what public money to demand, and that’s a recipe for, if not failure, at least more of an uphill battle than usual.
It sounds like a lot of people would rather preserve a decrepit stadium than keep the Bears in Chicago.
Because, of course, without that stadium, everyone will forget all the wars the US has fought.
Bold strategy.
That perfectly fine stadium hasn’t even paid off the bonds used to build it. Now we are supposed to pile on more debt to build another stadium that will sit empty at least 320 days a year? No thanks.
Who would care about keeping the Bears “in Chicago?” It’s doubtful they generate any net economic benefit to the city, and I imagine a majority of Bears fans would find a stadium in Arlington (or elsewhere in the ‘burbs) easier to get to.
Of course, if they can’t find anyone to pay for a new thing, either in Chicago or elsewhere, Soldier Field will look ok to the Bears.
I was just thinking about it from the preservation perspective, not the financial one.
Sure, it doesn’t make sense for the public to pay for an NFL stadium – either the old one or a new one. But that ship has sailed.
But it really does not make sense to preserve an outdated NFL stadium – especially one that is still being paid off – that does not have an NFL team.
I’m not sure Arlington Heights would be easier to get to for the fans. It might be for the fans that live out that way, but perhaps not for the fans in the city or to the south. It will depend on the details of transit, etc.
The advantage of a centrally located stadium is, at least in principle, the density of public transportation and the availability of parking garages nearby that are used for commuters during the week, rather than lots that are only used on game day.
But now that fewer people are commuting, I don’t know if either of those assumptions will hold.
One possibility, I suppose, could be that the Bears leave but the Fire stays and somehow renovates Soldier Field to be more like it’s original size and look. That would appease the preservationists, but I don’t know if the Fire could actually afford a project like that.
Arlington Park has plenty going for it: Location along a main highway linking the northwest suburbs. Easy access via expressway and tollway. Commuter train stop on or adjacent to the premises. Potential to host trade shows and sporting spectacles, depending on whether the stadium has a roof.
As always, the people who cry “what about the fans?” are those whose M.O. is “nothing should ever change”. That’s an excuse for bad business practices in any field.
The Climate Pleadge Arena in Seattle was built by the Seattle Kraken owners at $1 billion plus!
The City of Seattle while contributed to upgrading transit and around Seattle Center. Seattle put the building on the owners. Maybe other cities should check out what they did.
Seattle now has a first-class arena just waiting for the Sonics to return! Good Luck, Chicago!
That seems like a good deal because OVG paid to reconstruct the old Key Arena (which had a lot of public money in it, as I recall).
But the city still owns that real estate and charges rent. I don’t know how much they’re getting so it may or may not be a great deal for the city. Neil would know.
“Great deal” would probably be overstating it, but it’s a much better deal than most. Largely because voters passed a “no screwing ourselves on sports subsidies” referendum after the Sonics left:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170906223834/https://deadspin.com/want-to-avoid-getting-screwed-on-arena-deals-look-to-s-1800657108
Neil, with the sale of Zombie Deadspin to the “Legitimate Businessman’s Social Club of Malta”, it would be a good idea to archive that archive.
“Now, nothing against Finnish gamblers, but this is actually a very telling detail. Offshore countries or territories in the Mediterranean, particularly Malta, Cyprus, and Gibraltar, are known as online gambling havens, and the website had numerous references to Maltese-operated online casinos targeting the Finnish market”
https://tedium.co/2024/03/12/deadspin-lineup-publishing-owners-secrecy
If they put a new stadium in the south parking lot, next to the East Hall of McCormick Place, then remove the current Soldier Field, it might appease the Friend of the Park. Since would open up more space between the stadium and the Museum Campus. And crowed the two things that don’t belong east of Lake Shore Drive into one spot.
But that would necessitate taking down most of the old stadium, would it not?
Maybe they can burn down the East Hall of Mccormick Place, like the original Mccormick Place and build Bears Stadium there. At over 50 years old, Mccormick Place East must be as decrepit as it is ugly.
Years ago, with the number of conventions decreasing, park supporters suggested removing the East building or turning into a recreational building, but the convention authority claims it is still needed. The space it occupies, crunched between Lake Shore Drive and the lake is too small for a football stadium. But building down at the south parking lot, and making it part of McCormick place makes some sense. 4 or 5 mayors ago there was some discussion of building a McDome south of I-55, over the McCormick truck lots and rail yard and making it part of the convention complex.
I’ve been to that convention center a few times. It is one of the bigger ones.
But I suspect the demand for the biggest of the big convention centers will decline, and McCormick Place is not an ideal location.
They had to create a special road just for the buses to get from the hotels in the Loop area to the convention center.
There’s nothing “decrepit” about the stadium. It wasn’t just renovated 20 years ago, a brand new stadium was built only preserving the original exterior as a facade.
Yeah, the inside is not as bad as the outside. Much better sight lines than the original version. It’s not decrepit but it is rather primitive, and small, compared to all the new stadiums. But that’s not the city’s problem. That’s the Bears problem.
But since when a team did not make their problem, taxpayers’ problem? (Ie: the city)
I should not have used that word. I don’t know why I did.
Cramped was the word I was thinking. It has the smallest seating capacity in the NFL.
It might be “good enough.” But NFL teams are not in the business of “good enough.” That is not going to change.
So the option of keeping Soldier Field more-or-leas as is with the Bears in it is just not one of the available outcomes.
Either they leave, and the stadium becomes a white elephant, or they build a new one on or near that site.
Clearly, building the spaceship on top of the old stadium 20 years ago was not wise. It didn’t make anyone happy and now they’re having the same fight again.
It does have the smallest seating capacity (afaik) at 61,500.
Is that really a problem though? The current trend is for fewer more expensive seats (and it’s worth mentioning that the final iteration of the ‘old” Soldier field had a capacity just under 70,000, so it’s not like the current number was an accident).
I totally agree that the ’03 spaceship ‘fusion’ was not a good idea. And a huge waste of money.
But I wouldn’t be surprised if the “next” stadium (wherever it is built) still had a sub 70k capacity.
From the #$%^& crooked Arizona Land Department; the so called Arizona Coyotes and even lamer “Miracle Development” will get to bid on 100 acres at the Northwest corner of Scottsdale Road and Loop 101. @#$%& the schools of Arizona.
All State Trust Land transactions must be in accordance with the State’s mandate, to assure the highest and best use of the land, and to act in the best interest of the Trust.
The sale and development of State Land is often a long and slow process, taking from two to ten years. The purchasing process is initiated by an application, completed by the applicant and filed with the Arizona State Land Department. Submission of an application does not guarantee the land will go to auction for sale.
Was this process followed or was someone willing to risk a long vacation at club fed?
The comment the perfectly fine stadium, What ?? Soldier Field is a dump. The bonds haven’t been paid off so get creative. Let the Bears kick in Two plus billion for the new construction. The Bears are worth 6 billion plus. Creative financing with a retractable domed stadium that would hold many events. That would bring economic impact. Football, Soccer, concerts , Big 18 football and college bowl games. NCAA TOURNAMENT PLAY etc.
We like to brag about our building projects so tie in working over the railroad air rights. Build our Nation’s greatest multipurpose stadium. The new Soldier Field. Demo one of the dated McCormick buildings.
I get friends of the park . However We lost the Museum desired by so many especially Mr. George Lucas and Melanie Dobson and millions of fans. Don’t lose this opportunity. Yes the Chicago Bears should be in Chicago not Arlington Heights. That property is a gold mine and can be developed into a great economic engine.
Work it out make Chicago a World class destination and sports entertainment Mecca.
“Oh no, Chicago lost out on George Lucas’ museum” said no one ever.