As a Packers fan, my main problem with it is that's where the Bears play.

Though I do have some fond memories of its current iteration like the 2010 NFC Championship game!

Soldier Field is fine. The size of it had nothing to do with not hosting the World Cup. It's bigger than all but 2 of the host stadiums from the 2018 World Cup (I think FIFA's requirement is 30k). The reason we're not hosting is because Rahm didn't want to jump through all of FIFAs hoops and the large financial burden FIFA demands.

Secondly, 16 of the 30 NFL stadiums are in the 60k range. The brand new SOFI Stadium is 70k. I really disagree with abandoning a perfectly fine Soldier Field to be able to fit an extra 10k fans per game. And they've pretty much already said whatever they build in Arlington Heights won't have a roof or be nearly as nice as SOFI.

SunTimes article on the stadium topic
https://chicago.suntimes.com/city-ha...s-nfl-football

If Chicago values itself as a global capital, it should be a host for the world's most watched event. New York, LA, DC are hosting – and also cities like Nashville, Kansas City, Orlando, Baltimore....

Solder Field is 100 years old and a terrible fan experience. It's a pain in the ass to get to and has horrible bathrooms/concessions layouts. The weather is miserable for half the NFL season and there is near zero possible revenue outside a few weeks of football from November-March.

Yep, Chicago whiffed big time on some global attention. It doesn't have the name-recognition abroad that it did even 20 years ago and the chance to be on the world stage in front of the world's under-40 population is important.

Does hosting a sporting event make a city a global city? Are people flying to Sochi, Russia because they hosted the Winter Olympics? Did tourism in Johannesburg pick up after the World Cup? I just don't see the connection. Maybe I'm wrong, but hosting one-time events like sports doesn't strike me as the thing to make or break a city.

Now, hosting a world-renowned music event like Lolla, that helps. In fact, I think that's a bigger draw and sustainable for the city. The Architectural Biennial, that's a big deal on the global stage. Being headquarters for major corporations is a big deal.

The World Cup reaches (conservatively) 10x the amount of people that Lolla, the Architectural Biennial, and people with the trivial knowledge that Boeing or McDonald's is HQed here combined.

The average tourist wants to visit cities they've seen on TV. What event reaches the most middle class TV sets around the world?

No SF is a joke. SoFi is top class. And it can hold 100K people unlike SF that would never be able to do that.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoFi_Stadium





Capacity
70,240 (expandable up to 100,240 for Super Bowl, ect, Summer Olympics, and other major events)




Here is another Stadium that is modern.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Stadium


Capacity
100,000 (expandable to 138,084)

Retractable dome. Something that can be used all year long.



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._full_view.jpg









What an utter disaster SF is, Fucked up big time putting that POS in the old SF.

Should have left old SF as was for concerts and what not and built new outside of it instead.

I stand corrected- Rahm did say he pulled out. Don't really buy it.

Yes, those are all big deals. But if we're talking global events, nothing tops the World Cup. Not even close. And a global city like Chicago, given the chance, should be a part.

Since we're speculating about the possibility of putting a modern stadium in the area of SF, I went and measured the dimension of the At&T stadium dome. It is about an 1000ftx825ft ellipse.

The bleachers at SF are about 850ft long and 625ft wide. It could potentially be expanded length wise, but 825ft is basically the distance from LSD to Special Olympics Dr.

Further South around the parking lots there's no area that is close to 1000ftx825ft without cutting into Special Olympics Dr. and the park right up to the bike path it seems. I doubt that would go over well especially because that's probably the bare minimum ;) space needed.

Soldier Field is great for Catholic Eucharist Congresses in the 1920s and Promise Keepers evangelizing in the 1990s but pretty much nothing in between or after. Or so I've been told, I wouldn't know, I hate football.

But almost no city that has actually hosted the World Cup has ever seen a tourist bump afterward. In fact, there’s often been losses for when the regular tourists rescheduled. Especially when the competition is split between multiple cities, and you don’t get the opening or closing ceremony.

Basically, what probably happened is that FIFA made their demands. Rahm asked if Chicago would have the opening/closing ceremony, but was told that NY/LA would host them. Chicago could have the Group Stage games and maybe a semifinal.

Then everybody realized that Chicago’s most valuable Summer events would have to be paused for Croatia vs. Ghana, and most of the people attending would be Chicago residents who in general care for soccer less than baseball and football.

It’s such a bad financial deal to go along with FIFA that it only works out if your voters are soccer maniacs.

I think a new domed stadium would be a terrible waste of money for the state and city that can barely afford basic infrastructure, but ATT is a horrible comparison. It was built on a vast, wide-open suburban site, of course it has a big footprint. A better comparison would be our Midwestern peers in Minneapolis, Indy or Detroit, which all built domes on tighter downtown sites. Seattle's not a dome, but you can easily see how it could be adapted for a different roof. All of them are around 850'x700' with a steeper stadium rake.

No singular event or accolade will raise a cities profile. But taking every opportunity to get in front of the world and showcase the beauty of the city does, over time, make an impact. Right now the ONLY things Chicago is known for among the masses are crime and cold weather. Chicago does nothing to change that. Keeping the focus on the amount of industrial SF leased in the region or a new call center on the south side is not going to change the narrative on its own.0

Not to go too off the rails but instead of a new stadium on the lake what if Related pivots and develops a stadium/casino on the 78 site...

While I don't share the strong distaste for Soldier Field, on this we can agree - that is a phenomenal stadium. And it should be, as I just saw the estimated development cost, and even given sky-high expectations, I'm flabbergasted.

Lord no. I'd take the current meadow and Wentworth as a recreational drag strip over that.

Not the first time that's been proposed. This rendering is actually not on The 78 site but on Dearborn Park I and II site...

https://i.imgur.com/UiMVDbp.jpg

This one definitely is The 78 site though...

https://i.imgur.com/n0wCC0R.jpg

^ Lol I don't know which is worse

Current universe: Riverline and the 78 will be among the densest parts of the city, but Dearborn Park is a suburb that'll be hard to redevelop

Alternate universe: Giant suburban stadiums along the river that'll be hard to redevelop, but Dearborn Park is a highrise district