We got Chicago Bears lakefront stadium vaportecture!
So that really is directly south of the existing stadium, on top of the two-level Waldron Parking Deck. I have no idea whether it could support a stadium on top of it, or whether it would need to be moved to the north or south (which would certainly help explain the reported $1 billion infrastructure price tag), or whether Bears execs just figure they can do without those 1500 parking spaces. But it looks like a stadium might just fit there, barely.
New baseball and football (or maybe soccer?) fields on the old stadium site! This is no doubt designed to win the approval of parks advocates who won’t want to lose green space, though the whole area is still likely to be a mess during construction.
Yes, that indeed looks like a football stadium. even if you didn’t notice the people playing football and the giant letters “STADIUM.” That is an absolute crapton of luxury suites along the far sideline, and unlike in the earlier Soldier Field renovation renderings they’d be inserted under the upper deck seats, making those much worse, but such is stadium design in the Plutocracene.
Also, there’s a clear plastic roof, because all the kids gotta have one.
That’s some kind of skating rink? And maybe a crafts fair? In the spring, because the trees are flowering? Or is that snow that only sticks to small branches and not large ones? Anyway, more stuff, if Bears president Kevin Warren is calling it “a recreational and cultural campus,” there’s got to be lots of stuff.
All in all, not super-enthralling, without any major lens flare or typos or fans flinging their hands in the air for no reason. But it does look like a stadium, on the waterfront, which is what we were promised. What do elected officials have to say about it?
“This project will result in no new taxes on the residents of Chicago.” — Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson
And where would the reported $1.5 billion to $2 billion in public stadium and infrastructure spending come from, if not new taxes?
“…” — Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson
Okay! Gov. J.B. Pritzker, you have anything to add?
During a press conference earlier Wednesday on an unrelated topic, Pritzker — while stressing he’s a Bears fan — said he “remains skeptical about this proposal.”
“I wonder if it’s a good deal for the taxpayers,” Pritzker said. “It’s early on. I have not even heard the announcement (Wednesday), but obviously read (media) reporting.
“… It’s very important to me that with all the state has to accomplish, that we think about what the priorities are of the state. … There are a lot of priorities the state has, and I’m not sure this is among the highest priorities for taxpayers.”
This is a developing story, so tune back in for further updates. (Though honestly I’ll probably just wait to see what tomorrow morning brings, we can all wait, you got somewhere to be? Feel free to kibitz and add followups in comments, though.)
I chuckled at the mention in one article that it could host World Cup games. After 2026 it will likely be another 30+ years until the US hosts again, and the McCaskey’s will be demanding another new stadium by then.
They could host qualifiers. But USMNT doesn’t like playing against some teams in Chicago because visitors fill the stadium. Mexican national team plays here occasionally. Cash cow for them. But for most opponents, 22,000 seat Seat Geek is more than enough.
And the Fire are going to play where?
They can go back to SeatGeek? I mean, they already play a few matches there a year.
A few weeks ago there drawings of GRF repurposed as a soccer stadium, once the Sox move to the78.
Interestingly, the Red Stars, Chicago’s NWSL team, is playing a game in Wrigley in June. The lead owner of the Red Stars is Laura Ricketts, whose family owns the Cubs. She has been pushing for the Red Stars to have a seat at the Chicago Stadium table, though it makes more sense for her to work with the Fire.
Build a new stadium, then remove 17 soccer games that could be held there. Move the 17 soccer games to an existing stadium to replace 81 baseball games. Move 81 baseball games to land that could otherwise have 365 days of housing/office/retail.
That process devalues three different parcels of land. I fully expect Chicago and Illinois to do that.
I did kot say it was a good idea.
I think they are on to a total winner there Jeremy…
With the White Sox record since they won the World Series 20 years ago, maybe Chicago should pay them $2billion to move to North Carolina, that’s actually the South Side. As for da Bears,
Nashville is offering very generous stadium subsidies. Maybe you can even squat in the Titans new stadium, like the Chargers and Jets. Being the second fiddle in Music City on the cheap is alot better than paying for your own stadium to replace the one you goofed up 20 years ago in the 3rd largest city in the country. DID YOU HEAR THAT VIRGINIA?
The Los Angeles Chargers are tenants at SoFi Stadium. The New York Jets are co-primary tenants of MetLife Stadium. In fact, the Jets pitched in to build MetLife Stadium after their proposed palace on the west side of Manhattan was torpedoed by the likes of Madison Square Garden.
As to Nashville getting a second NFL club, Amy Adams Strunk would like a word with you.
They’ve discussed renovating the lower bowl of the White Sox stadium if the Sox move. More likely, they too would play at a new Bears stadium. MLS prefers soccer specific, but they’re a lot of exceptions, like Atlanta and Seattle. Two of the better MLS draws.
I dunno, it’s tough to pull off. All but two of the MLS teams currently playing in an NFL or MLB facility (the Sounders and Fire) are owned by the same person or entity, so the clubs aren’t really tenants of someone else’s digs. MLS spent years getting their teams either in soccer-specific stadia or under the same ownership because the clubs were often treated like glorified squatters and matches were getting bumped for car shows and crap. I think they’re hoping the ChiSox move and opens up the GRF site for the Fire to have their own venue. I don’t know of anyone who would want the freaking McCaskey family as their landlord.
I’ve wondered this ever since the Bears announced they were going to stay in the city after all. Their original plan was to renovate Soldier and undo some of the godawful changes made in the 2001 rebuild once the Bears pissed off to Arlington Heights. Now, their best bet is either the suburbs or being a tenant of the Bears.
It appears there are two new parking garages in this plan. One of the parking garages is under all of the playing fields replacing the current Soldier Field footprint and the other is to the south of the new stadium (between the new stadium and the convention center.
That would certainly explain a bunch of the infrastructure costs. Where are you seeing that?
That row of buildings on the left, is probably a big NO for Friends of the Park.
When they renovated Soldier Field by slapping the flying saucer on it, it lost its designation as a National Landmark, so it lost its protection, as well. Which means they can knock it down and turn it into a giant phallic symbol for all they care.
I gotta say, as dumb as this is, it APPEARS as though they have kept the historic colonnades as part of whatever sits outside the dome in one of these renderings. Which is really the only part anybody cares about now, since the spaceship blew up the whole design.
But the rest of it is dumb.
Just FYI, there’s no way the existing Waldron deck could support a stadium on top of it. It’s not that big (1500 may be the official capacity but that’s a real stretch). It’d be gone, as would the entire south parking lot, so that’s 3,000 spots they need to make up somewhere. Oh, and the north garage is gone too in the renderings, or at least the above-ground part, so that’s about 2,000 spots (or more) that also won’t exist. 5,000 or so total.
But the city has shown remarkable abilities to build underground garages in the past (there are 9,000 spaces under Grant and Millennium parks) so maybe that’s the plan here.
Makes Reinsdorf look like a cheapskate since he’s only putting up $200 Million for his $1.25 Billion stadium and the Bears are putting up 70% of their cost.
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2024/04/23/chicago-white-sox-ballpark-project-the-78-jerry-reinsdorf-sports-teams-mlb-news?hl=chicago+white+sox&sc=0&publicationSource=search
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2024/04/24/chicago-bears-lakefront-stadium-taxpayer-burden?hl=chicago+white+sox&sc=0&publicationSource=search
According to the link you provided the Bears are putting up only half the cost ($2.3B of $4.6B)
$3.2 Billion is for the stadium, the other $1.4 Billion is for infastructure costs.
No, I can read.
Those infrastructure costs are only happening (potentially) because of the stadium. And the Bears benefit from them so not sure why you excluded them other than to make it seem like the team is picking up most the tab.
That SBJ article is paywalled for me, but unless they know something the rest of us don’t, “Bears to pay more than 70% of cost for new stadium” seems like somewhere between jumping the gun and journalistic malpractice.
No the SBJ piece said it was 50% (so $2.3B of the $4.6B).
50% or 70%, my point is they’re putting a larger percentage of money into it than what Reinsdorf is willing, albeit for a more expensive project. Will he put up more money? I say no.
“Makes Reinsdorf look like a cheapskate” is pure anchoring.
To the Chicagoans: how powerful is the Friends of the Park group? Are we talking like they have veto power, or have wealthy patrons who’d sue the city into the sun (like San Francisco homeowners when the original proposed site of Chase Arena was going to block their views of the water), or more just a yappy group? I’m morbidly curious if a civic park patron program could deep-six a multi-billion dollar stadium for an NFL franchise in one of the largest markets in America, because that sounds like a plot line dreamed up by Armando Ianucci.
Powerful enough that George Lucas gave up on building a museum in the Bears parking lot. And the Children’s museum gave up on a museum near the current Maggie Daly Park. Their biggest strength is the law/precedent is on their side. The Lakefront is meant to be parkland. And courts have backed them up. But they didn’t fight the last Soldier Field redo, since it created more park land and a museum campus. If a new stadium includes the removal of the old stadium. They’ll probably be good. If it includes a lot of non park stuff, they’ll fight those parts. The nice thing about the stadium moving south, is it moves it slightly farther away from the museum campus. And that part of the park, where I-55 and the east convention hall meet, is already a mess.
Oops. Sorry somehow on my phone this got posted out of thread.
Neil feel free to delete this if you are able.
I’m curious, y’all — not like my opinion matters worth a damn — but does anyone else think this would be a better site for a Bears stadium?
https://stadiumhelp.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/image-21.png
Not sayin’, just sayin’…
Yes. The White Sox site is probably better for football. Major highway access. Two CTA lines. One Metra line. Room for both surface parking and garage parking.