SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Development (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=86)
-   -   CHICAGO | One Central (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=239273)

left of center Sep 29, 2021 3:16 PM

I think the one major stumbling block for this move is public funds. There is a snowball's chance in hell the state or county pony up funds for this new stadium. Soldier Field still will not be paid off until 2034, and the state and city invested heavily into the "UFO inside the Parthenon". If the Bears wanted IL to pay for anything, they should have threatened to move to NW Indiana like they did in the 90's.

That said, the Bears are a wealthy franchise, and if any can build a stadium on their own, its definitely them. Doesn't necessarily mean they would though.

This could be a play to get more concessions from the city, but it also could actually be the ticket out of SF that the Bears have been looking for. It will be interesting to see it play out. I'm rooting that they stay of course.

Rizzo Sep 29, 2021 3:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomarandlee (Post 9410376)
Absolutely on all accounts. If the Bears want to build a new stadium south of McCormick Place or they want to build south of the Amtrak yards on Roosevelt etc. give them the blessing. Otherwise, it's time to bid farewell. The Bears had one shot in 2000 to get taxpayer help with a stadium and they obviously blew it in not foreseeing their own requirements 20 years on. They are the ones who knew they would be hemmed in on the lakefront. They knew they would have the smallest stadium in the league and they wanted it open air. A new stadium in A.H. will never have quite the cache or draw that the same stadium would have near the lakefront downtown.

And even though public tax financing will be DOA for the Bears in A.H. how have we not passed laws as a society against taxpayer financing of professional sports stadiums yet It's about damn time.

Well said. Plus their private funding strategy won’t work. Seat licenses and league fees and a sponsorship just won’t go far enough. They need a ton of public funding and they won’t be getting it. More extensive demolition and replacement of soldier field or a new lakefront stadium seem like a better compromise despite the cost.

I guess I’m wrong on this, but I felt they’d be throwing away great access to centralized transit and a huge tourism market. The rebuttal was Bears fans are loyal, mostly in the suburbs and they don’t need to be in a downtown area. Maybe that’s true, but it still seems very limiting. I also wonder how it impacts cost. More people would be driving and paying insane parking fees and I’m sure ticket prices would still be high to pay for the stadium

west-town-brad Sep 29, 2021 3:43 PM

public funding for a new stadium?

depends on what you mean by "funding"...

will the state of IL or some municipality write them a check? No way.

will the state of IL or some municipality grant them tax free status (or some such low percentage close to zero) for the next 25/50/100 years? Highly likely.

Rizzo Sep 29, 2021 3:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by west-town-brad (Post 9410468)
public funding for a new stadium?

depends on what you mean by "funding"...

will the state of IL or some municipality write them a check? No way.

will the state of IL or some municipality grant them tax free status (or some such low percentage close to zero) for the next 25/50/100 years? Highly likely.

For Chicago…The ISFA uses hotel taxes. But it could pass through onto Chicago taxpayers. For an Arlington Heights stadium: SoFi stadium is getting tax breaks, but not quite sure how a municipality with a limited budget could afford to do this since the stadium will undoubtedly stress local infrastructure and services. Atlanta and Vegas still required a ton of public money.

BuildThemTaller Sep 29, 2021 6:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rizzo (Post 9410479)
For Chicago…The ISFA uses hotel taxes. But it could pass through onto Chicago taxpayers. For an Arlington Heights stadium: SoFi stadium is getting tax breaks, but not quite sure how a municipality with a limited budget could afford to do this since the stadium will undoubtedly stress local infrastructure and services. Atlanta and Vegas still required a ton of public money.

Wouldn't be surprised if the state allows the Bears to open a sportsbook or even a casino license to fund this. So-Fi is a multi-use facility with a Casino, after all.

glowrock Sep 29, 2021 6:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcp (Post 9410338)
C'mon yall... signing a purchase agreement doesn't mean much - there are dozens of "outs" in those contracts.

This is pure leverage - Hallace family telling LL to pound sand.

Watch this evolve to a great offer from the City.

It shouldn't evolve into even a good offer from the City, quite frankly. Let the Bears pay for their own damned stadium! Now if LL comes up with a land swap of some sort, perhaps that would be okay, but I don't want to see some massive cash infusion to help the poor, decrepit Bears out. ;)

Aaron (Glowrock)

Steely Dan Sep 29, 2021 6:37 PM

^ agreed.


NO MORE PUBLIC MONEY SUBSIDIES FOR MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR SPORTS INDUSTRIES!


we need to end that shit once and for all. we played that stupid fucking game with the bears 20 years ago, and look where it got us. ENOUGH! :hell:


if the bears are greedy enough to come begging again only a couple decades after they last held their hat out, then they need to go fuck right off.

jpIllInoIs Sep 29, 2021 7:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 9410682)
^ agreed.


NO MORE PUBLIC MONEY SUBSIDIES FOR MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR SPORTS INDUSTRIES!

we need to end that shit once and for all. we played that stupid fucking game with the bears 20 years ago, and look where it got us. ENOUGH! :hell:


if the bears are greedy enough to come begging again only a couple decades after they last held their hat out, then they need to go fuck right off.

Especially now that all Professional sports franchise owners in Illinois have been granted their own in house casino revenues!

jpIllInoIs Sep 29, 2021 7:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller (Post 9410655)
Wouldn't be surprised if the state allows the Bears to open a sportsbook or even a casino license to fund this. So-Fi is a multi-use facility with a Casino, after all.

This has already happened. While we were all in covid lockdown - Illinois passed new gambling legislation in 2020. It granted casino licenses to all of the professional sports venues in Chicago, sans Soldier Field. That is what this "One Chicago" proposal is all about. One of the investors along with the Bears in the Arlington Height purchase IS Bet Rivers Casino in Des Plaines. Arlington Heights Racetrack is already eligible for a casino license with their current owners Churchill Downs partners. So yeah, a casino is a done deal for this venture.

BTW- Illinois' Sports Book revenues is second highest in the US after New Jersey. But ahead of Las Vegas.

Rizzo Sep 29, 2021 7:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs (Post 9410760)
This has already happened. While we were all in covid lockdown - Illinois passed new gambling legislation in 2020. It granted casino licenses to all of the professional sports venues in Chicago, sans Soldier Field. That is what this "One Chicago" proposal is all about. One of the investors along with the Bears in the Arlington Height purchase IS Bet Rivers Casino in Des Plaines. Arlington Heights Racetrack is already eligible for a casino license with their current owners Churchill Downs partners. So yeah, a casino is a done deal for this venture.

BTW- Illinois' Sports Book revenues is second highest in the US after New Jersey. But ahead of Las Vegas.

I read somewhere before the Raiders stadium was finished that anticipated gaming revenues of participating attendees would be $63 million a year. That was predicted and I don’t know what percent that might be used for payment and of course in Vegas with gaming tourism is different from Chicago.

I imagine it being no different than what other teams are doing with sportsbook lounges, I’m just skeptical it would be substantial. The raiders stadium got a $650 million bank loan, $200 million league loan, and $300 million in naming rights and seat licenses according to its Wikipedia page. So if costs don’t substantially increase (they will) and assuming a flawless timeline with no escalating costs (doubtful) an assumption that they have half of what they need to build seems to be a reasonable guess. That’s where I’m confused as to where they’ll get the rest. It’s not that the bears shouldn’t get the funding for locating in Arlington Heights…they won’t get it. If soldier field can be replaced and remain under park district control and continue funding through hotel tax capture with no surprise burdens on Chicago taxpayers, I don’t object to a new lakefront stadium.

Mister Uptempo Sep 29, 2021 9:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs (Post 9410760)
This has already happened. While we were all in covid lockdown - Illinois passed new gambling legislation in 2020. It granted casino licenses to all of the professional sports venues in Chicago, sans Soldier Field. That is what this "One Chicago" proposal is all about. One of the investors along with the Bears in the Arlington Height purchase IS Bet Rivers Casino in Des Plaines. Arlington Heights Racetrack is already eligible for a casino license with their current owners Churchill Downs partners. So yeah, a casino is a done deal for this venture.

BTW- Illinois' Sports Book revenues is second highest in the US after New Jersey. But ahead of Las Vegas.

No. The state granted sports venues with over 17,000 seats the ability to apply for a sport book license within the venue, not a casino license. There is a limit to the number licenses that will be granted (something like 15 IIRC). Also if the venue is occupied by one than one sports team, all the teams that play there have to give their approval to the venue owner.

ETA - Arlington Park had the opportunity to apply for a casino license provided that a percentage of casino revenues were set aside for racing purses. Churchill Downs/Arlington turned down that opportunity. CDI is selling Arlington because they do not want a casino there to compete with Rivers in Des Plaines. It is not a done deal; it's the mirror opposite of a done deal.

What will likely happen, now that Arlington's 2021 race season is over and failed to apply for race dates for 2022, is that the Illinois Racing Board will pull CDI's state racing license and quickly force them to close their remote Off-Track Betting locations in the state. The gaming legislation allowed the race tracks to have a sports book on the premises as well as three sports book parlors at their OTBs. Hawthorne, when done, will have a PointsBet sports book at their OTBs in Crestwood, Oakbrook Terrace, and Prospect Heights. If Arlington had any BetRivers parlors at their OTBs, they will likely lose those as well.

According to WBEZ-
Quote:

But at the time in 2020, Phillips pitched the creation of a “sports betting lounge” within Soldier Field for Bears game days — “discreet location(s)” that would look and feel like a sportsbook with the live broadcast of NFL games on televisions along with the display of sports betting lines but not allow the placing of physical bets. Under the Bears’ proposal, there was money to be made in the advertising in the space.

In exchange, Phillips offered the Park District 20% of the revenue generated from the advertising in this space, according to emails.

But the offer from the Bears was met with a short, brusk statement from the Park District’s leader, who said the organization had been considering the implications of the legalization of sports betting in Illinois, which Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker signed into law in June 2019.

“At this time it would not be productive to pursue the opportunities outlined in your letter,” Kelly wrote to Phillips on Nov. 6, 2020. “Additionally, my team is working on a comprehensive design for the park and open space adjacent to the North end of Soldier Field. We will certainly consider your thoughts and opinions at the appropriate time as the project moves forward.”
The whole thing stinks. From sources I've read, the Bears were not the high bidder for the race track. Ray Arnold's group, which includes Sterling Bay, supposedly was high bidder.

Churchill Downs is dumping Arlington now because the state will no longer pay out recapture money to the tracks, which CDI used for their race purses at Arlington.

The whole point of granting the race tracks the chance at casino licenses was to wean the tracks off recapture by requiring them to use a percentage of casino revenues for purse money.

Arlington is a short 12 miles away from Rivers Casino in Des Plaines. CDI did not want to compete against itself for casino money and then have to plow a percentage of the revenues into purses, when, for them, the recapture system of state-sponsored corporate welfare worked best. And they certainly didn't want any other group taking the track over and getting a casino license, either. Before the Bears' bid was even a thing Arlington Heights forbid Churchill from making a pledge to not race a condition of sale.

CDI only owned a minority stake in Rivers until 2019, when, knowing the sports betting/racino bill was being hammered out in Springfield (and that meant racinos and the end of recapture), they became majority owner. It was at that moment Arlington was dead in the water.

And who is the Bears' official sports book partner? Why, Rivers, of course.

If the Bears wanted to defray the cost of a new stadium at Arlington Park, they should consider selling the track to either of the two bidders who planned on keeping racing going, share the cost of parking and infrastructure, and build their stadium and develop any remaining land.

At least the property would see more than 8 or 10 game dates. And Arlington Heights would probably bend over backwards to get football and horse racing and racino revenues.

bnk Sep 29, 2021 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister Uptempo (Post 9410924)
No. The state granted sports venues with over 17,000 seats the ability to apply for a sport book license within the venue, not a casino license. There is a limit to the number licenses that will be granted (something like 15 IIRC). Also if the venue is occupied by one than one sports team, all the teams that play there have to give their approval to the venue owner.

According to WBEZ-


The whole thing stinks. From sources I've read, the Bears were not the high bidder for the race track. Ray Arnold's group, which includes Sterling Bay, supposedly was high bidder.

Churchill Downs is dumping Arlington now because the state will no longer pay out recapture money to the tracks, which CDI used for their race purses at Arlington.

The whole point of granting the race tracks the chance at casino licenses was to wean the tracks off recapture by requiring them to use a percentage of casino revenues for purse money.

Arlington is a short 12 miles away from Rivers Casino in Des Plaines. CDI did not want to compete against itself for casino money and then have to plow a percentage of the revenues into purses, when, for them, the recapture system worked best.

CDI only owned a minority stake in Rivers until 2019, when, knowing the sports betting/racino bill was being hammered out in Springfield (and that meant racinos and the end of recapture), they became majority owner. It was at that moment that Arlington was dead in the water.

And who is the Bears' official sports book partner? Why, Rivers, of course.

If the Bears wanted to defray the cost of a new stadium at Arlington Park, they should consider selling the track to either of the two bidders who planned on keeping racing going, share the cost of parking and infrastructure, and build their stadium and develop any remaining land.

At least the property would see more than 8 or 10 game dates. And Arlington Heights would probably bend over backwards to get football and horse racing and racino revenues.

I'm not familiar with the size of the tract of land bought. But can they keep the Track open and build a new standard massive domed NFL stadium on the same footprint?


I'm not sure that is possible but if true than that's a knock out idea.

Id like to keep horserace going in Illinois. I remember when there were about 5 tracks in the metro area. AP is a newer park that is still a gem. But is horse racing a dying sport? I don't know. But its the best horse track in about a 300 mile circle. That's a lot of people in its catchment. I think it is a same the State of illinois no longer made horse racing a viable business.

Mister Uptempo Sep 30, 2021 3:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bnk (Post 9410991)
I'm not familiar with the size of the tract of land bought. But can they keep the Track open and build a new standard massive domed NFL stadium on the same footprint?


I'm not sure that is possible but if true than that's a knock out idea.

Just a little rough calculating-

Arlington Park property occupies 326 acres.

The race track, infield, clubhouse, grandstand, portes-cochères, and paddock - 95 acres

Current parking around the track - 53 acres

According to Wikipedia, AT&T Stadium (Cowboys) is 73 acres, with 30 acres of parking.

326 - 95 - 53 - 73 - 30 = 75 acres left.

I did not include the barns/stables or horsemen's lodging. They can easily be torn down and rebuilt much closer to the track than they are now, with a smaller footprint.

At Hawthorne, all their barns/stables and horsemen's lodging are crammed along the backstretch between Cicero and Laramie, taking up a little less than 30 acres. For reference, the entire Hawthorne complex occupies 119 acres.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bnk (Post 9410991)
Id like to keep horserace going in Illinois. I remember when there were about 5 tracks in the metro area. AP is a newer park that is still a gem. But is horse racing a dying sport? I don't know. But its the best horse track in about a 300 mile circle. That's a lot of people in its catchment. I think it is a same the State of illinois no longer made horse racing a viable business.

Yeah, Sportman's shot itself in the foot when they decided that auto racing would be a more profitable line than horse racing. Balmoral and Maywood met their ends as a result of the Blagojevich scandal, when the Johnston Family (who owned both tracks) pledged a large campaign contribution in exchange for Blagojevich's signature on an extension of recapture.

Is horse racing dead? It's doing alright in states that established racino programs years ago. It has resulted in larger purses, and larger and more competitive fields.

Illinois has scuffled since the Nineties/early 2000s, when Chicago harness racing was considered the most competitive in the nation. Long term, the casinos hit them hard, and inter-track wagering in the last 15-20 years has resulted in a huge imbalance between what comes in and what goes out. It doesn't help when the region's premiere track, Arlington, was rendered almost irrelevant, due to CDI's dwindling purse sizes, and their unwillingness to foster growth in the state. The state should have done more earlier. They've made up for the delay, but is it too late?

Also, on a regulatory note, when CDI decided to purchase a majority stake in Rivers in 2019, The Illinois Gaming Board and Illinois Racing Board should have jointly forced Churchill to sell Arlington (preferably to another track operator) as a condition for approval. Racinos were on the table in Springfield at the time and CDI's acquisition of Rivers should have set off alarms at both agencies.

The industry as a whole could do a much better job of marketing horse racing than they currently do.

Had things worked out as planned, Chicago would have had three racinos - -

-Arlington, running thoroughbreds late Spring to early Autumn.

-Hawthorne, running as a hybrid track. Thoroughbreds in Spring, standardbreds through the Summer, thoroughbreds October through December.

-Tinley Park (never named, though I suggested the name Brementowne), running as a standardbred track all year.

If all three tracks were running and all three were generating casino revenues, it would probably take 3-4 years to properly turn around the fortunes of the racing industry in the state.

But, for the time being, we only have Hawthorne.

Randomguy34 Sep 30, 2021 10:28 PM

This was an interesting quote from Maurice Cox during today's Bisnow event. The city might have an ace up their sleeve

'Chicago Is About To See An Increase In Density Like Never Before'
Quote:

The possible exit of the Chicago Bears from the city was uppermost on the minds of many at Bisnow’s Chicago State of the Market event today, but Department of Planning and Development Commissioner Maurice Cox wasn’t giving out much information.

“We have folks in the city working mighty hard to accommodate them,” he said. “It’s an ongoing negotiation, so I don’t have a lot to report. But there is a strong chance we’ll succeed, and I think Chicago will be happy with the result.”
https://www.bisnow.com/chicago/news/...-before-110391

2PRUROCKS! Oct 1, 2021 12:24 AM

If Chicago really wants to keep the Bears in the city limits (which I think they should) then a new stadium that would have a retractable roof and be incorporated with a casino and McCormick Place could be a win-win. Possible locations for such a structure:
1. Incorporate it into the One Central development west of LSD. Space could be pretty tight.
2. Build it on the truck marshalling yards south of McCormick Place.
3. Build on a portion of the old Michael Reese site.
4. Tear down the McCormick Place Lakeside Center and build the stadium there.

Then remove the upper seating on the west side of Soldier Field that cantilevers over the colonnades reducing the seating capacity so it is more ideal for soccer and smaller events <50K.

SamInTheLoop Oct 1, 2021 4:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 9410682)
^ agreed.


NO MORE PUBLIC MONEY SUBSIDIES FOR MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR SPORTS INDUSTRIES!


we need to end that shit once and for all. we played that stupid fucking game with the bears 20 years ago, and look where it got us. ENOUGH! :hell:


if the bears are greedy enough to come begging again only a couple decades after they last held their hat out, then they need to go fuck right off.



This.

It's one of seemingly countless never-ending very successful cons that business interest groups manage to pull off over time sometimes without breaking a sweat.

Further, I literally could not care less if the Bears move to Arlington Heights or anywhere else for that matter. In fact, the city should always be seeking ways to substantively bolster its reputation and standing on local, regional, national, and global levels. How does a continued association with a perennially awful organization that routinely puts out a terrible product further that obvious objective? If they were to relocate to some generic, dull, forgettable suburb, perhaps it would be a match made in heaven - if only in such a case there were a legally enforceable way to pry the "Chicago" from their name.

So, not only should there be no public money involved in trying to keep them, perhaps the city should be actively seeking to jettison this miserable outfit from its borders?

That stated, if there were some sort of much larger deal to be had, where they city really gets a bunch of significant related and perhaps some less related appealing things related to economic development in a much broader context than just a new stadium, then perhaps, just perhaps it might be worth exerting anything beyond the bare minimal effort to have them stay. (again, no public money going to the team) Otherwise, bye. I don't see how anyone other than hopeless die hard fans could be so shameless as to attempt to mount a counterargument at this point, with the relevant historic record.

Randomguy34 Oct 1, 2021 5:33 PM

Three reasons why you shouldn't bet on a Bears move just yet

Quote:

One key person to watch in that drama is Bob Dunn, who made his name building and rebuilding NFL stadiums and now is pushing the huge One Central mixed-use development on air rights immediately west of Soldier Field. If Dunn can come up with a plan to dome Soldier Field at a reasonable price—I hear he just may be working on that very thing —and improve the team’s cash flow by easing the way for stadium naming rights and some other tweaks, the possibility of a win-win-win exists.

For Lightfoot, there’s the prospect of a major economic boost for the South Side consistent with her economic equity drive. And she’d dodge the "mayor who lost the Bears” label—while also opening up the possibility of hosting a Super Bowl or Final Four. The Bears would get a much-improved home in a world-class location and a big boost in local revenues, all at no real risk to the team. While a lot of seats wouldn’t be added, something like 80% of NFL revenues comes from TV, not seat sales. And Dunn? He saves an anchor for One Central.

I’m not predicting it will turn out that way. But it could. The Bears’ relocation game is somewhere in the first half. There’s lots and lots of playing yet to come.
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/greg...heres-why-hinz

ardecila Oct 1, 2021 6:06 PM

I would love it if the mayor actually came out in support of the move. Feels like it could be mutually beneficial and a great opportunity for the city. The Bears aren't leaving Chicago, they're just moving down the street to a bigger house. It's only an L if you think it is. The 49ers moved out of SF and everyone seemed to think it was a win-win.

Pro football really is the most suburban of sports. Is anybody really happy with the compromise of a tiny, wildly expensive tailgating lot that still takes up a huge chunk of the lakefront? Or a colossal, Frankenstein building on the lakefront that only gets used 8 times a year?

By getting behind the Bears move, Lightfoot can have more time to plan for what comes next. That's more time to plan for public transit to the Arlington site - Lightfoot could support a reduced-fare pilot program on Metra UP-NW or free CTA-Metra transfers. Even if the Fire become Soldier Field's biggest tenant, that's still 3x more home games per year. Their attendance is smaller but I wouldn't be surprised if you get the same economic impact. Also, a Soldier Field without the Bears can host more concerts or other events, and can be renovated with that in mind.

Also, think about what it would take to keep the Bears - even in the rosiest scenario where the team pays for a new domed stadium somewhere, the city is still gonna be on the hook for infrastructure, policing, etc. That's the last thing we need with huge pension liabilities, crumbling existing infrastructure, a failing school system, and rising crime. Get the Bears off the city's books and let the fiscally-stable suburbs deal with them.

VKChaz Oct 1, 2021 8:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 9412698)
I would love it if the mayor actually came out in support of the move. Feels like it could be mutually beneficial and a great opportunity for the city. The Bears aren't leaving Chicago, they're just moving down the street to a bigger house. It's only an L if you think it is. The 49ers moved out of SF and everyone seemed to think it was a win-win.

Pro football really is the most suburban of sports. Is anybody really happy with the compromise of a tiny, wildly expensive tailgating lot that still takes up a huge chunk of the lakefront? Or a colossal, Frankenstein building on the lakefront that only gets used 8 times a year?

By getting behind the Bears move, Lightfoot can have more time to plan for what comes next. That's more time to plan for public transit to the Arlington site - Lightfoot could support a reduced-fare pilot program on Metra UP-NW or free CTA-Metra transfers. Even if the Fire become Soldier Field's biggest tenant, that's still 3x more home games per year. Their attendance is smaller but I wouldn't be surprised if you get the same economic impact. Also, a Soldier Field without the Bears can host more concerts or other events, and can be renovated with that in mind.

Also, think about what it would take to keep the Bears - even in the rosiest scenario where the team pays for a new domed stadium somewhere, the city is still gonna be on the hook for infrastructure, policing, etc. That's the last thing we need with huge pension liabilities, crumbling existing infrastructure, a failing school system, and rising crime. Get the Bears off the city's books and let the fiscally-stable suburbs deal with them.

I don't know if there is any good publicly available analysis, but the city should be considering the full revenue and cost impact of the games on the city - which includes subjects like transit shuttles, traffic and policing. And, in event of a move, consider how much of that lost revenue would be recouped by that same money being spent on other forms of entertainment. As well as how much could be retained in the city (e.g., hotel stays in the city by people who ride the train to a game). Offhand, it strikes me that something for which resources need to be amassed 8 days a year might not pencil out to be especially cost effective. I suppose something like "city pride" or image and marketing could be factored into the mix, but if you start down that path, there is no end to the perceived value.

The same degree of analysis should go toward all events, but there is also a distinction to be made between public and private events requiring a ticket. For the city to perform its due diligence is complicated, e.g., can One Central be part of the equation or what is the future of Soldier Field without the Bears. But modern football stadiums and the all-around experience they try to provide lend themselves well to large auto-centric footprints. And the days when a city need feel slighted about a football team playing outside its borders have passed. The city shouldn't take it personally if the team moves, and Lightfood should be gracious in that case.

Steely Dan Oct 1, 2021 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VKChaz (Post 9412854)
. But modern football stadiums and the all-around experience they try to provide lend themselves well to large auto-centric footprints. And the days when a city need feel slighted about a football team playing outside its borders have passed. The city shouldn't take it personally if the team moves, and Lightfoot should be gracious in that case.


as i mentioned in the other thread where we talking about the bears, 12 of the NFL's current 30 stadiums (40%) are already located outside of the municipal boundaries of their main cities, so the bears would have plenty of company if they do end up leaving town.


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.