Back like a boomerang.


https://www.chicagobusiness.com/greg...ransit-benefit

https://s3-prod.chicagobusiness.com/...S%3D1630616744

This thing is silly.

Indeed. Beyond laughable.

I'd vote to immediately and permanently close this thread. This thing is, and always has been, a joke.

About as "serious" a proposal as Bill Davies' Post Office towers.


This guy is claiming that his firm has spent tens of millions already on this. Good God. Would love to see those receipts. And if they exist - Good God.

Also, one of the tentative equity partners is listed as Johnson Controls. Huh?

Not to go too OT - Promoting a connection to Soldier Field makes me hate this even more. Now is not the time to sink more $$ in that mess on the lakefront. While the Bears may not be successful in their attempt to locate to Arlington Hts it is a reality that could come to pass. Either way SF is the smallest NFL stadium and Chicago needs different location for its' NFL team. Preferably around Sox Park or UC.

Things that make you go hmm...

I'll step out as the lone voice crying, "I like it," and hope it continues to gain momentum and land endorsements.

I actually don't hate the idea either, though I wonder how much traction it really has. I can't quite discern it yet as this guy is clearly a promoter.

I find it interesting that Hinz added this update to the article. Makes it seem a little more "real".

This is my take as well. But the funding sources make me think this is a potential boondoggle.

If a Related was behind this, you'd think "they know what they are doing on super complex developments like this - if they are putting their money into it, it probably has legs". A quick perusal of the websites for the 3 private funders (Ullico, Loop Capital, and Johnson Controls) does not give the same feeling. Instead, my interpretation is "these guys probably got taken in by a good story and are in over their head".

Reminds me a bit of Theranos. Supposedly a super innovative biotech company, but none of the big biotech investors would touch them. Instead, their whole board was former generals and secretaries of state who didn't know anything about biotech, but bought the story.

Not saying that this project will turn out to be a pure fraud and vaporware like Theranos. But if it was, Johnson Controls won't be able to sniff it out the way that a Related could.

I agree - I thought it was "whatever" until reading that they actually have some legitimate backers they're willing to name. Not only that, but a few transit agencies have talked about it which indicates they've probably realistically done some studies.

Johnson Controls is also huge and does much more revenue per year than Related. They're profitable too with at least a few billion in cash on hand. As far as someone putting up money goes, they're totally a viable company.

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

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