HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #541  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 4:43 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,549
They should have released this thing 24 days earlier.

Truly laughable. Literally the worst of all worlds. The finances. The design.

It's just a non-starter, a non-entity out of the gate.

And then you have our buffoon of a mayor getting behind this thing.

Let's hope the Governor maintains his good sense and kills this goofiness quick before it takes on a larger life of its own.

Arlington Heights: get your act together.
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #542  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 4:51 PM
left of center's Avatar
left of center left of center is offline
1st Ward
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Big Onion
Posts: 2,573
Yeah, this looks great. Let them build it. With a billionaire family's money, not the taxpayers.
__________________
"Eventually, I think Chicago will be the most beautiful great city left in the world." -Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #543  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 4:59 PM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,374
All the other issues aside, including the location or who pays for it, is anyone else turned off by the fact that this stadium is a total retread of another stadium, Alligent Stadium in Las Vegas?

I get it; there are only so many ways you can size up and configure a stadium, but this city is proud of putting its design stamp on its buildings. This abject imitation of a prior design is beyond lame. It is as if Manica Architecture took the blueprints from its Alligent Design and let some interns make a few cosmetic refinements before showing it to the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #544  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 5:25 PM
Tombstoner Tombstoner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halsted & Villagio View Post
This is falling into groups:

1. The group that wants the Bears to stay in Chicago at all costs,

2. The group that wants the Bears to stay in Chicago only if the taxpayers do not feel the burden of this -- my group,

3. The covert Friends of the Park/Parking Lot group who have weighed in here,

4. Those that pan this plan because they secretly (and not so secretly) are still hoping the Bears move to the suburbs... Arlington Heights in particular,

5. Those that pan this plan because they do not like anything good happening to Chicago -- a small group but they are out there and I submit a few may have already weighed in here on this forum/on this topic,

6. Those that pan this plan because they are scared of Chicago/tend to be xenophobic/believe everything they hear on Fox News, etc. and would prefer the stadium be built in a relative corn field, any corn field, miles outside of Chicago,

7. Those that do not like Brandon Johnson and would like to see anything he touches, crash and burn. I get it. He is polarizing. I would just hope that we could put the best interests of the Chicago ahead of personal dislike and/or animus for any one person.
8. Those who don't care where the Bears play and think this proposal could be interesting but that it isn't the game-changer design that some suggest. As is, it doesn't do nearly enough to make it worth the huge taxpayer contribution but that's not to say that a more intelligent/less lazy design wouldn't be.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #545  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 5:37 PM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halsted & Villagio View Post
It all depends upon execution... what will added to area beyond the ball fields? I love that there are buildings adjacent and surrounding the ball fields if you look closely... why are they for? What will they house? Will there be restaurants over there? Shopping? Events on or around the ball fields?
Restaurants and retail have a hard time enough as it is in the neighborhoods where people live. People will only make regular trips to restaurants or retail establishments near this stadium on event days, approximately 20-30 times per year. At best, these will be game day specialty shops or gameday restaurants, or perhaps seasonal weekend restaurants that don't necessitate being part of a stadium complex anyway.

Quote:
There is so much that can be done with what they are creating that its far too early to say that anyone would not be attracted to it because they think it will resemble "ball fields in Grant Park".
That is what the Bears have themselves depicted. Who is making anything up? These are set to be the nicest little league baseball fields in the world, I'd grant you. Still, at the cost of a few hundred million each, that is a heavy price to pay to make them happen.

Beyond the Bears proposal, the city needs to have a serious conversation about its vision for the area's future between the Field Museum and north of MCC-East. Should that space be "green space", akin to what is shown here? Should bulldozing Soldier Field, in part or in full, be part of that vision? At what cost? Is building an enormously expensive parking garage underneath the space necessary or an expensive boondoggle? Should Soldier Field be scaled back and repurposed, and its assets not wasted? Maybe as a music venue, soccer stadium, or minor league baseball stadium that will generate revenue and still bring people to the lakefront in its own right? Perhaps the Bears are fearful that Soldier Field would compete for events similar to those in their new stadium. Perhaps a deal could be cut between the city and the Bears for essential a non-compete over the same events if the Bears promised to stay in the city.

The city also needs to ask whether it wants to be dictated how to spend the plus-one billion dollars or if it wants to decide the best use for it itself. If the Bears didn't come with their grand "plan," would anyone dream up this as the best way to spend it? Other than game days, how many people will be clamoring to go down to this new Soldier Field and hang out? This is no new Millennium Park or Riverwalk, even at twice to ten times the expense.

Quote:
That said, getting it funded is the tricky part. This, without a doubt, should pay for itself a few years down the road... unlike the current hybrid monstrosity that the Bears call home. Because of its year round use, monies spent should be recouped in relative short order.
That is a laughable contention. Given that the Bears will be paying for most of the stadium, they will no doubt dictate that they get the vast majority, if not all, of the ticket revenue, naming rights revenue, and probably even the parking revenue that the city will be paying through the nose to build and maintain. No doubt they have learned from JR how to screw the city/public by getting absolutely favorable terms on a stadium while paying the minimum in terms of taxes and revenue retention.

I remember a few here in 2010 were still claiming that the parking meter fiasco was a worthwhile investment; the convention that this will "pay for itself" is no less absurd.

Quote:
That said, what we see right now/people throwing down markers and drawing sand lines - politicians have to seem like they are towing the line on this - their constituents demand it. But in the end, if reasonable compromise can be made so that this thing is funded in such a way that the backs of taxpayers do not feel it, it should be done - because this city definitely could use it, and dare I say, needs it.
Needs it? No. New York City, San Francisco, Seattle, and many other cities do just fine without an indoor stadium. If the Bears want to build a 2 billion dollar stadium within White Sox Park, Reese Hospital, South Works, or Lincoln Yards, they are more than welcome.

All the talk and promises about adding 25k temporary construction jobs, five baseball fields, or 10k underground lakefront parking spaces that absolutely no one is clamoring for is a diversion.

Last edited by nomarandlee; Apr 25, 2024 at 5:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #546  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 5:50 PM
west-town-brad west-town-brad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 969
I seem to recall that McCormick Lakeside East is beyond it's useful life and perhaps unnecessary now?

Perhaps the Bears could pay to demolish it and return it to parkland as park of their paid tribute to the mayor and governor.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #547  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 6:35 PM
galleyfox galleyfox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by west-town-brad View Post
I seem to recall that McCormick Lakeside East is beyond it's useful life and perhaps unnecessary now?

Perhaps the Bears could pay to demolish it and return it to parkland as park of their paid tribute to the mayor and governor.
McCormick Lakeside can’t be removed without expanding the convention space elsewhere, and the money for that renovation would come from the same taxpayer pot that the Bears want.

And if they have an extra billion dollars sitting around for that, they can pay for the stadium by themselves.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #548  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 6:54 PM
west-town-brad west-town-brad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 969
Quote:
Originally Posted by galleyfox View Post
McCormick Lakeside can’t be removed without expanding the convention space elsewhere, and the money for that renovation would come from the same taxpayer pot that the Bears want.

And if they have an extra billion dollars sitting around for that, they can pay for the stadium by themselves.
Okay - though I recall from the Casino Site Selection Olympics that the Lakeside center has only been used a few times in the last few years, and one plan was to turn it into a casino. No expansion plans were included with the casino. So maybe the additional space is not needed?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #549  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 6:57 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by west-town-brad View Post
Okay - though I recall from the Casino Site Selection Olympics that the Lakeside center has only been used a few times in the last few years, and one plan was to turn it into a casino.
The plan for the Lakeside Center Casino was torpedoed by McPier who made the argument they do need that convention space.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #550  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 7:10 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee View Post
All the other issues aside, including the location or who pays for it, is anyone else turned off by the fact that this stadium is a total retread of another stadium, Alligent Stadium in Las Vegas?

I get it; there are only so many ways you can size up and configure a stadium, but this city is proud of putting its design stamp on its buildings. This abject imitation of a prior design is beyond lame. It is as if Manica Architecture took the blueprints from its Alligent Design and let some interns make a few cosmetic refinements before showing it to the city.
Yes, from this angle too. 1,000%

Everything about this isn’t merely trash - it’s also insulting.
The Bears should literally be forcibly kicked out of the city and state for the severity of this insult. Take their junk product elsewhere.
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #551  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 7:19 PM
BrinChi BrinChi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 450
Ok but (re: all the hate on the recycled stadium design) isn't there a chance the current rendering of the stadium is not finalized and "Chicago-ized" because the whole project is still a pipe dream? Why would they pay architects to develop an iconic design when nothing about the funding, FotP lawsuits, etc. are finalized? I'm looking at this as the overall site plan and assume different possibilities of the stadium itself would be explored if this ever does get all the stakeholders on board. I could be naive here though and off the mark.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #552  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 7:43 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisouthside View Post
A festival with the colonades in the background would look great
Like this?

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #553  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 7:54 PM
BrickellBased BrickellBased is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 203
So dumb. So Sad. So Chicago.

The whole thing is just trying to extort the city for public money by threatening to leave and remove the value that already exists. A new stadium would add marginal value at best.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toasty Joe View Post
The city needs like 200 things before it needs a new lakefront football stadium. They're still $600M in debt from the renovation!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #554  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 8:18 PM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 4,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
Arlington Heights: get your act together.
From what I'm seeing on an AH group on Facebook, the residents of AH think they have their act together just fine. Comments are running heavily opposed to the Bears' demands for tax freezes, etc. Concerns that AH taxpayers would get fleeced and taxed out of town. Which are not unfounded.

Basically "let the people of Chicago get screwed". Pass the popcorn please.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #555  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 8:25 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,850
^ good.

May tax payers everywhere finally revolt against these gross handouts of public money to multi-billion dollar corporations that study after study say do not pay off.


Fool us once, shame on you.

Fool us 87 times..... maybe..... finally...... shame on us?
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #556  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 9:19 PM
IrishIllini IrishIllini is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,181
Just realized the capacity would only go up by about 9,000...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #557  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 9:32 PM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishIllini View Post
Just realized the capacity would only go up by about 9,000...
I thought I'd heard mid-60k's yesterday. I hope you are right, given that a Super Bowl would definitely require over 70k. If it were over 70k, that would be nearly the average to just above the average for the new stadiums. Teams have finally found that smaller stadiums build up demand and drive up prices. There is little need to try to pack in 80k-plus a game.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #558  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 9:56 PM
Ogdenman36 Ogdenman36 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 17
As a huge Bears fan(ready for the draft tonight) and a lover of architecture...... it is a giant NO for me right now. Why?

First with the draft - Tenn, Buffalo, and the Bears are using the same draft artist that did the Raiders stadium, why it all looks the same. Most are saying it will look much different if it happens

-Size - Capacity would go up......3,500 seats. Yep all this for 3,500 seats with. Right now they have the lowest capacity in the NFL and would be around 25-27 with expanded capacity

-Parking, getting to Solider Field -This is where it really gets bad. Warren talked on sports shows of "possibly" adding one unerground paking lot and a double decker lot......okay, would work for going to the museums, but 60K all at once?

Also, with lake to the east and railroad tracks to west, it is the worst located stadium in the NFL to get to. For those coming from the suburbs its a walk from both metra stations, those in the city, red line is still a 30 minute walk. Also there is no tailgating.

Every Bears and Chicago lover agrees it looks beautiful as a postcard with lake and skyline, but actually getting there is a complete nightmare and those who drive pay 70 bucks to park near Wabash/Roosevelt and then walk 25 minutes.

As a city lover and in an indeal world, would love a big dig(which would be needed) to cover the tracks, doing the metra/CTA/ Chi line connection they did in the first video......but in the real world that would cost $$$$

With FOP and the Gov an house speaker against it I just dont see it happening. Time will tell.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #559  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 10:11 PM
VKChaz VKChaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: California
Posts: 575
Quote:
Originally Posted by west-town-brad View Post
Okay - though I recall from the Casino Site Selection Olympics that the Lakeside center has only been used a few times in the last few years, and one plan was to turn it into a casino. No expansion plans were included with the casino. So maybe the additional space is not needed?
It is used. See event schedule

https://www.mccormickplace.com/events/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #560  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 10:17 PM
VKChaz VKChaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: California
Posts: 575
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrinChi View Post
Ok but (re: all the hate on the recycled stadium design) isn't there a chance the current rendering of the stadium is not finalized and "Chicago-ized" because the whole project is still a pipe dream? Why would they pay architects to develop an iconic design when nothing about the funding, FotP lawsuits, etc. are finalized? I'm looking at this as the overall site plan and assume different possibilities of the stadium itself would be explored if this ever does get all the stakeholders on board. I could be naive here though and off the mark.
Isn't it more likely it gets further watered down? And am not sure a business that mass produces these things has any interest in "chicago-izing."

I would expect the everyday reality will lack whatever people find appealing about the renderings. Just like the remade Soldier Field never stopped looking odd. This would always be a behemoth looking out of place on the lakefront. My personal view is these particular types of stadiums are better suited to suburban locations. And I wish Chicago would get over the idea that it is somehow an affront if a professional sports team is not located in the city proper.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:34 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.