The transit "study" that the Crain's article cites: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1630619884

Noted real estate investor, Johnson Controls. Corporate size is irrelevant - it's not what they do.

Guys, let's use some common sense. These are not firm commitments - I guarantee you that. These are "tentative" - they don't mean anything....again, I guarantee you there is no risk involved in these. Prove me wrong.

Barrelfish - I sense you have the right instincts. It feels like a boondoggle, doesn't it? You're right to think that a project of this enormous size and complexity should have a developer and firm institutional/private equity partners (and subsequently the same on the debt side) commensurate with the task. What do you think folks in the offices of your Relateds, Lend Leases, Brookfields, etc are saying about this project amongst themselves when they see this nonsense? I think you can venture a strong guess.

But, you don't need to use some famous wall street darling megafraud as a corporate comparison - this is real estate development....mere gaudy showmanship - if that is in fact what we're looking at here - happens all the time in the industry. There's a strong culture of promoters and outright carnival barkers in land development, and it's been that way in the US probably since the 1700s, if not before.

And, it's not even necessarily outright fraud at all when it comes to this stuff. It's just presenting a vision of something that is in fact a preposterous pipe dream, and talking it up big, and getting others - here, especially public officials/government agencies, etc, to consider it real, or at least be willing to go along for the ride.

This is why I always, always, implore folks to study developers' and their partners' relevant track records when grand developments (or maybe not even so grand) are proposed. What have they actually developed or financed? Just start with their website and branch out from there. Simplest thing to do. I honestly can't tell what this guy has actually developed. He's somehow been involved in a bunch of projects, but if you look at the services list, it runs the gamut to small ancillary real estate related services. I literally have no clue, but I suspect it's much less than the casual observer would quickly surmise.

Generally speaking, know a Bill Davies when you see one. Know a Garrett Kelleher. Be smart.

^ I think everyone, including me, is in agreement that there's quite a bit of fluff with this thing. But at the same time, it might have...10% legs. Chances are it never happens.

While it doesn't seem likely, what's the point of proposing something like this if there's no intention of it happening? Such an expansion of the downtown would be awesome, even if it took 10-15 years.

Not sure if this has been posted either:

Developer sees One Central project as where Chicago goes to grow

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/9/...-transit-study

This line gave me a laugh:

The study says One Central will become the busiest station in Chicago. That's funny.

The transit study they reference is a joke, the $6.5 billion price they are trying to extort from the state is a joke, their finance partners are a joke.

Other than that, I hope they succeed. :tup:

But in all honesty I think there is some small chance that this could work, but that certainly doesn't involve billions from the state. Tie this project in with the casino and a soldier field expansion/doming (some deal worked out to keep the Bears) and remove half of the transit elements/state funding and you get to something that could work if the stars all align.

Not holding my breathe.

Some gambles have short odds; some are long shots. Some developers (Bob Wislow) are pretty cautious and risk-averse; some developers will take the long odds in hopes of a bigger payout.

My guess is that Forest City/Central Station has been sitting on these air rights, Jerry Fogelson (who's 88) didn't feel he had the energy to gin them up into something, and went looking for a new partner. Landmark/Dunn thought "we've done projects with NFL teams, this is next to Soldier Field, we've done projects with public bonding before, the money we have to put up is very little, there's a couple of investment groups who'll take my calls, and if the chips fall right there could be a big payoff."

Lightfoot talks enhancing and expanding Soldier Field to keep the Bears
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/greg...-soldier-field

^^^ I'm surprised Lightfoot hasnt already fallen into the classic Chicago mayor's short man's syndrome of pushing for tall buildings before. She is probably the shortest mayor in Chicago history, you'd think she would be trying to get a new WTB approved.

In any case, hopefully this means she is planning on pushing for the casino to go here. Honestly the only way this project ever happens is if it includes a casino, buy in from the Bears, and literally every other piece just falls into place for the developer...

Agreed.

I just can't imagine the Bears in Arlington Heights.... I know the space is there, and there's reason to put it there, but still..... Gross.

Wrap this all up with a Casino bow and make it happen to the Bears stay in the city.

I imagine a new stadium will eventually be built just south of Soldier Field for the Bears, and then the Fire will continue to utilize Soldier Field.

Friends of the Parking Lot will fight with the energy of a 1000 suns to keep that from happening :haha:

Year round facility has to include some kind of dome. Im not sure how they could do that without dismantling half or more of solder field. Probably would take more than a full football season to do too, 1.5 years.
the Current SF never should have been built to that size when the bears could easily sell out 100K tickets a game. It like the smallest NFL in the entire NFL, What were they thinking? Cant even host a superbowl it doesn't come close to the min requirments. The fucking UFO was out dated even before they started construction.
Id rather start over with something new next to solder field.

can a new larger stadium even fit in any of the lots south of soldier field?

There are a lot of surface parking lots south of SF


But what would "Friends of save the parking lots" say except for a lawsuit

The Lucas Museum was to go in the round parking lot in this map


https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8584...6159944,17.34z

It would be larger than the Lucas Museum but with redirection of some roads and going into MP parking lots, easy but also expensive.

How feasible would it be so simply widen the existing footprint of Soldier Field? Demolish the UFO, move the east colonnades 100 feet closer to the lake, and build a domed stadium in between?

It couldn't be that much more expensive than a brand new complex out in Arlington, or fighting endless legal battles with building a new stadium immediately to the south of the existing SF, right?

I've wondered if something similar is possible. Giving the colonnades there is a lot more room to work with on the north/south sides of the field. In this scenario, I would demolish everything and line up the end zones E/W pointing towards the Colonades instead of N/S. Then you build two very large multi-level stands on the north/south. I would enclose all of it or make a retractable dome over it. The colonnades would serve as types of end zone gateways into the new stadium.

what's wrong with Soldier Field?

1. Smallest stadium in the NFL for starters. Too small to host the world cup for example (not included in the North American bid to host- horribly embarrassing especially considering US Soccer is headquartered in Chicago).

2. Also, feels to me like its aged very quickly despite only being about 20 years old. Working within the original footprint really hampered it.

3. Finally, parking (and even pedestrian access)... sucks