Soldier Field had already hosted the World Cup with the opening ceremony in 1994.

The city’s local basketball team with Michael Jordan made that entire World Cup a complete afterthought in world sporting history.

Mass immigration from Mexico to the lowly food processing and logistics warehouses completely changed the fortune of Chicago vs. most other rust belt cities.

Many of the teens who attend Lollapalooza eventually decide to live in Chicago full time which is more than what most foreign tourists will do

It would be incredible to have a festivity like the 1893 World’s Fair, but that was the culmination not the cause of a golden age. There were endless expositions that followed in other cities that had minimal impact. St. Louis hosted the first American Olympics and that went nowhere

It’s ridiculous to hanker after a one-off event where Chicago would be a sideshow from the start when there’s a good chance the call center will have the more profound real world impact.

I don't recall ever seeing this rendering, though in 1985 I was very much in the middle of the neighborhood debate over a White Sox stadium at Clark & Roosevelt. But look more carefully: the rendering shows the area from Harrison to 16th west of Clark—not Dearborn Park.

Didn't realize Vancouver stole Chicago's plans.

https://objects.artspan.com/member/h...00/2635759.jpg

Apparently this rendering is from 1967, so long before the 1985 proposal you debated: https://www.southsidesox.com/2012/11...south-loop-sox

This would have been shortly after the UIC plan for the railyard site died, and Daley tore down Little Italy instead. But that still left the railyards undeveloped, so this was Daley's Plan B. (Somehow Del Webb was involved?)

Dearborn Park I would not be proposed for another decade, and the railyards were very much up for grabs if a deal could be struck with the railroads.

yes, Chicago does not have the name recognition that KANSAS CITY will soon have.... hilarious....

I agree. Probably still over half the of the stadiums, other than the newer stadiums (Atlanta, Minneapolis, LA, Dallas, Vegas, Seattle, Houston) look shlocky aesthetically, both inside and outside compared to Soldier. Many look totally utilitarian, uninspired, unoriginal, and formulaic (Nashville, Charlotte, Tampa, Denver etc). I think the sweep of the lux boxes on the east side of SF actually set it apart as one of the better-looking stadiums. Also while the colonnades and bowl are awkward as hell they still give the stadium a unique and interesting character which is far more than one could say about half the stadiums.

It is simply too small and owned by someone else. That is really the fault of the Bears because their demands were that it be on the lakefront and outdoors. It was not the city that demand they build under 62k. They set the parameters and now they know that those parameters suck.

The Sox forever blew that one not moving to the South Loop and getting the after-work crowd from downtown.

Ironically, it was the desire for a new Bears stadium that made possible Dearborn Park. George Halas had taken an option on the C&WI/Dearborn Station railyards to possibly build a Bears stadium there, but Da Mare apparently wasn't in favor. The option was still in effect, however, when downtown business leaders formed the Century 21 Corporation to actually build the new-town-in-town proposed in the 1973 Chicago 21 plan.

Maybe next time you'll catch the argument, because that clearly wasn't it...

Bears have signed a purchase agreement for the Arlington International Racecourse

https://theathletic.com/news/bears-s...e/QTJyEXELsaMt

If they do move, this probably torpedoes One Central, which seemed like a real long shot anyway.

Agreed, having the station and connection to Soldier Field was a central point in their pitch. I don't think the soccer team or any concerts are going to have enough draw to justify the bill of this plan.

I don't foresee this plan going forward.

I think this is a huge message to Lightfoot. Get on the ball or lose it.

It's time to leave it in that case. Screw the Bears. I understand making enhancements/expansions to Soldier Field, even finding a way of building a new stadium on/adjacent to the current stadium, but there's no way in hell the Bears shouldn't be paying for the majority of the costs involved. I'm actually more than a little sick and tired of NFL stadia becoming these absolute beasts already. I used to think the "new" Mile High Stadium in Denver had a massive footprint, but these new ones (L.A./L.V, Arlington, etc... are absolute mammoths that are completely reliant on being nowhere near the center of cities. Fuck 'em.

Aaron (Glowrock)

Proof that the Bears are just a business (like any other NFL team or major league sports team, for that matter), and don't give two shits about where they're located..as long as those sweet, sweet concession monies still keep coming, they really don't give a shit if they win, either.

I highly suspect that current Bears fan base is mostly suburban anyway, so in a way, a move to a shitty, car-oriented suburb makes sense..

..

That view of downtown during games is gonna be replaced by views of sprawl.:shrug:
As if it worked for the 49rs moving almost 40 miles to Santa Clara im sure it'll work for the Bears.

It is funny how many pro sports teams think that changing a location or building a new stadium is going to fix their organization and poor coaching.

Didn't the Bears pull this in the mid 90s? I wouldn't say they're lost to AH just yet.

If they move they will still have the shots scanning the skyline from the lake via drones. Even now most of the skyline on TV and other shots of the city, do not include the stadium. Expect that to continue.

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.

I'm pretty ambivalent on a move, on the one hand SF is iconic and having the skyline as a backdrop cannot be beat. Less superficially though, the stadium itself sucks, is miserable to access whether on foot or by car, and the size, layout, and exposure to the elements are extremely limiting from a programming perspective (for both the city and the Bears.)

But I do think that a few days after one of the most horrible performances in NFL history, continuing a tradition of mediocrity to downright embarrassing putridness, it seems gallingly arrogant to pursue a multi-billion dollar state-of-the-art stadium for one of the two or three teams that can be counted among the annual laughingstocks of the league.

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.

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

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.

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.

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)

^ 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 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.

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-
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.

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.

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.

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.

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'
https://www.bisnow.com/chicago/news/...-before-110391

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.

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.

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

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/greg...heres-why-hinz

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.

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.

Yeah and many in "city limits" are in outskirts (e.g. Philly, Tampa, Houston, Green Bay, KC), the equivalent of putting it somewhere like here: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6845.../data=!3m1!1e3

I’m still rooting for the city, but it would be foolish of me not to agree with you 100%. Ultimately it probably makes the most sense in the burbs. The optics sting, perhaps because the last 25 years of city planning galvanized the public belief that stadiums and arenas belong in urban centers as a tool of revitalization, even though we know that’s not usually the case. For Chicago, it’s a unique situation worth the praise of having a stadium in the park, on the lakefront, not surrounded by seas of parking.

Sports can be a tool for urban regeneration, but the problem is not all sports are created equal. Land in a downtown should be intensely used, given the high land values and extensive infrastructure that supports downtowns. That's why arenas are the best fit for a city. Not only are basketball and hockey played on a smaller playing field that makes the buildings themselves fairly compact, but they also have long, intense schedules that guarantee the building is well-used throughout the year. That creates so much potential for businesses and amenities to grow up around an arena - it's criminal how we've allowed the area around the UC to languish.

2nd best is perhaps baseball - a bigger playing field and fewer games, but still quite a bit (~81 home games/year). Medium potential for surrounding development, which is still quite a bit of potential - see Wrigleyville. Also, baseball was born in cities so the dimensions of the playing field are flexible and not fully set in stone - that makes baseball stadiums uniquely able to fit into different urban sites without needing to wipe out their surroundings.

3rd best probably soccer, the playing field size is comparable to football but the attendance at games is not the same as NFL, so the stands can be smaller or more vertical and they don't need to curve so a soccer stadium plays nicely in a rectangular street grid. There's also little to no tailgate culture, so parking lots aren't a must-have. So much of soccer culture is influenced by Euro and Latin countries where it's simply not realistic to drive to a game. And the current MLS season gives teams ~17 home games per season.

Of course, football is the least urban-friendly. Stadiums are large, purpose-built and hard to adapt for other uses, and they are an odd shape that swallows up land. Fans, especially for professional games, demand the ability to drive to a large open-air parking lot to tailgate. And of course, only 8 home games per year.

The Chicago Urban League, Business Leadership Council, and Illinois Hispanic Chamber of Commerce gave their endorsement to One Central. The Tribune has an article on it, along with a new economic opportunity study. They plan to submit their zoning app either this month or next

Economic opportunity study: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1633119932
https://i.imgur.com/Lh0FtISh.jpg

Lol at those Bears flags. :D

They're very erect, like starched canvas in gale force winds.

Really nothing new until we see what's submitted in they application. I don't care how far-fetched it may be, getting zoning approval is key, then any developer could step in...

https://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...81484#nws=true

Massive One Central development plans call for concert venue, retail and restaurants near Soldier Field

By LAUREN ZUMBACH
CHICAGO TRIBUNE |
OCT 18, 2021 AT 11:24 AM


The developer behind the proposed $20 billion One Central development revealed details for the project’s first phase: a transit center surrounded by roughly 1.4 million square feet of retail, dining and entertainment space on a 35-acre site above the train tracks near Soldier Field.

The full plans for One Central, unveiled in 2019, include up to 22.3 million square feet of buildings with as many as 9,050 residential units and 9.45 million square feet of offices. The project still needs city and state approval to proceed, and Landmark president Bob Dunn has said he expects to submit a zoning application by late October or early November.

Calling the area "underserved" is a stretch...

The South Loop definitely isn't underserved lol. But this seems very ambitious. Looks lovely tho, wonder what they're going to do about soldier field/the bears. Could this get the Bears to stay with a new/renovated stadium on those empty parking lots or elsewhere?

And does this have a good chance of getting pass zoning?

I have no idea how you could consider the South Loop underserved. The article made it seem like Dunn was talking about grocery stores, which is laughably untrue with a Marianos, TJs, Jewel and Target plus another Jewel across the river.

Its possible that Dunn was talking about entertainment, there does seem to be a relative scarcity of bars and restaurants in the South Loop. But I think that’s how the residents like it. I guess from the standpoint of “stadium adjacent development” it isn’t ideal.

Dunn didn't call it 'underserved' he called it "Dramatically Underserved". Just more hyperbole from a flim flam man. Also isn't an entertainment district going to compete with the city's long term effort to create the Motor Row district?