As I understand it, it hasn't been an ideal contract for either party. While Bridgeview had to finance the stadium, and also has seen meager/non-existent growth to cover the expenses, the Fire is also stuck in the lease until the 2037 season, and still have to pay usage fees regardless of their location, and compensation for games in Chicago not played at Toyota. Tons of debt on one side, and quite the buyout both upfront and over time on the other end. The polarization of the terms seemingly hasn't done any favors.

Wow, looks like both sides had some terrible lawyers in retainer. I guess the Fire isn't going anywhere anytime soon. It seems that our best bet is getting that USL team to become popular enough to join the MLS. Chicago is certainly large enough to support two MLS teams.

Wouldn't construction of a sports stadium necessitate traffic studies, environmental reviews, community/neighborhood input, various levels of city approvals, etc? Though maybe this land is already zoned appropriately that Sterling Bay can construct whatever it wants? Not that I want a potential new sports team/stadium to get hung up by NIMBYs, just surprised by the announcement.

^ I'm actually don't think much community input will be needed since there aren't that many 2nd ward residents surrounding the development. The 43rd ward NIMBYs are going to give a helluva fuss about it, but ultimately most of the North Branch is in the 2nd and 27th ward. We already know that Brian Hopkins can be pro-development if there's not much NIMBYism, and Walter Burnett already said a couple months ago that he doesn't care about the concerns of residents from other wards about development in the North Branch. There still is a helluva lot of approvals needed from the city, but having to worry less about NIMBYs certainly makes it easier. Here's a reminder of how screwed up the wards are for this area:

http://www.centersquarejournal.com/w...w_2nd_ward.jpg
Source: Chicago Map

Retractable roof? Un heard of in this city. If Solder field was retractable we would have had the Olympics and super bowls and winter convention space.

No one is smart enough to put a retractable dome in Chicago, it makes too much since. Even though Milwaukee figured out how to do it years ago.

Too bad it will still be too small for any real sport though.

Most retractable roof stadiums in the US (and Europe, Japan, etc) are oversized, taxpayer-funded albatrosses. For all the money spent on a retractable roof at Miller Park, it has exactly ONE public event scheduled this winter, which is a 5K in the parking lot. They do host concerts (next one is April) but Wrigley also host concerts without a roof.

Seriously, these roofs run into the hundreds of millions. I don't see how they make business sense unless you have a bunch of free money to burn.

This whole stadium idea seems pie-in-the-sky unless and until Sterling Bay lands a major Amazon-esque tenant, and the retractable roof is just a sweet nothing that Gloor mentioned to build hype.

I could see demand in Chicago for a small outdoor stadium, for a minor-league soccer team, high school sporting events, and other community uses (tennis tournament?)

The stadium will seat around 20,000. Which is about the White Sox's average attendance

I think it has the potential to serve as a stadium analogue to Wintrust Arena in the multi-use sense. Especially being empty in the winter/USL off-season.

What the fuck?!

Not to be too picayune, but it's not really the roofs that are the biggest cost in a dome stadium project. It's that once you enclose a stadium, you need massive amounts air conditioning. It's all the HVAC equipment, ducts, etc., that are the biggest cost. But your point is well taken.

^ Comparable to United Center, a 20k seat enclosed stadium? Except, as to operating costs, UC can't un-retract its roof.

This area already is a traffic clustermess, at least along Armitage around the Kennedy and Metra, and Ashland from Fullerton to Cortland. I don't see how you just shove at least 5 thousand extra vehicles (including ride-hails and self-driving ones ... but not yet including all the office worker traffic) into that at least once a week, without massive infrastructure construction to reconfigure things. Admittedly major upgrades are needed there anyway.

This out-of-left-field move by a property developer must be part of enticing Amazon; maybe they think Amazon would want to use a giant field and stadium like this sometimes. This would help explain the retractable roof too, as the perception of horrible winters will be affecting Amazon's thought processes.

This site makes no sense infrastructure-wise, and I'm sure Amazon will realize that. I hope it's not the only Chicago site they're seriously considering. I didn't hear about Amazon touring any other sites this past weekend...

sorry but I crack up every time I see that 'ward map' :haha:

I don't see it. Wintrust Arena itself has a shaky business case, but it doesn't matter since it's funded through McPier (tax dollars, etc). This is presumably a totally private venture by Sterling Bay.

However... now that I think about it, maybe it's possible to use air-supported technology (i.e. a golf dome) to enclose the stadium cheaply. Setup and takedown would be a project, but it could just be done for November-March when soccer games are not being played. The max span on a golf dome is around 360' while a FIFA soccer field is only 240' wide, so that still leaves 120' or approximately 40-45 rows of seats. With some endzone seating, it wouldn't be difficult to fit 20,000 seats. Getting people in and out while maintaining air pressure would be the biggest challenge, especially at the end fo events when everyone is leaving (or during an emergency evacuation).

The old Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States (Roof deflated January 18, 2014, demolished in February 2014)in Minneapolis dome was supported by air I know.

some more.

Carrier Dome, Syracuse, New York, United States

Tokyo Dome, Tokyo, Japan

the old Pontiac Silverdome

many more in link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-supported_structure


Advantages:

Can be engineered to attach to a pre-existing structure
Considerably lower initial cost than conventional buildings
Lower operating costs due to simplicity of design (wholly air-supported structures only)
Easy and quick to set up, dismantle, and relocate (wholly air-supported structures only)
Unobstructed open interior space, since there is no need for columns
Able to cover almost any project
Custom fabric colors and sizes, including translucent fabric, allowing natural sunlight in


...


Among its many uses are: sports and recreation facilities, warehousing, temporary shelters, and radomes. The structure can be either wholly, partial, or roof-only air supported. A fully air-supported structure can be intended to be a temporary or semi-temporary facility or permanent, whereas a structure with only an air-supported roof can be built as a permanent building.

What will be the largest air-supported dome in the world is currently being constructed on the IBM campus in East Fishkill, New York. Scheduled to open in summer of 2018, the Sports KingDome will feature a 160 feet (49 m) high ceiling and 350,000 square feet (33,000 m2) of training space for athletics. Currently the largest air-supported dome in the world is "The Dome" in Anchorage, Alaska at 180,000 square feet (17,000 m2).

...

^While I agree with all the positives here, you seem to have forgotten one minor thing, the fact that these domes are prone to collapse in heavy snow, or snow melts. In fact, "the Dome" in Anchorage had a collapse just this year. Also, I don't think anyone can forget the Metrodome collapse in Minneapolis. These domes are finicky, and I don't like the chances of one through a particularly harsh Chicago winter, or snowstorm. These domes are best done in an area where they aren't prone to extremely heavy snowfall.

It's shaped like a lobster and was a ploy to gerrymander Alderman Fioretti out of office:

https://assets.dnainfo.com/generated...extralarge.jpg
Dnainfo

No, Wintrust doesn't have a "shaky business case". It's got an anchor tenant in DePaul and is already booking huge acts including Bob Dylan. Why? Because it's designed for multiple functions and fills a gap in venue capacity in Chicago. There is no other indoors 7-10k capacity venue here. You have United Center at 20k and then Aragon and Auditorium both at 4k capacity. Congress used to have 5500 capacity which could come close to competing with a 7k act due to it's excellent location and atmosphere, but they got shut down.

A venue like Wintrust can rent for six figures to the right promoter for the right show. That's for a single night.

I agree with you, just pointing out that with a capacity of ~7,500 the UIC Pavilion can serve this need as well.

^ Also Arie Crown Theater, United Center, Allstate Arena, Rosemont Theater, CharterOne during summers, Sears Centre, The Odeum, etc. Plenty of venues, especially when you consider Chicagoland as a metro and not just the city itself.

I still think Wintrust is a shaky proposition, but it doesn't matter because it's run by a government agency and because it's part of a larger McCormick Place ensemble. It'll get used, especially for large speaker events or entertainment as part of a convention.

A stadium at Lincoln Yards, I think, will have a more difficult time. There's certainly a need for an outdoor sporting venue that can host high school/amateur events and tournaments, etc. I just don't know if the "retractable roof" (whatever that means) is going to pay off. The whole thing seems poorly thought-out and more like a ploy to lure Amazon. Remember, Wintrust only works because McCormick already has massive parking capacity, easy access from all expressways, streets that are rarely congested, and a brand-new Green Line stop. Lincoln Yards has no infrastructure like that, and no concrete plan in place to build it.

That's basically everyone's initial impression when they see that ward map. Politics is a dirty business.

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