Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila
Why would I want a Super Bowl in Chicago? We have to spend billions on a dome just to be considered for hosting a Super Bowl. Even then we have stiff competition from all the other cities playing the same game, including warm-weather cities that don't need a dome.
The juice ain't worth the squeeze - we're talking about a temporary boost to shops and restaurants in the NW burbs for one week every 20 years. Ask Detroit if their dome was worth it - and in Detroit there was at least some synergy with the rest of downtown.
And I don't believe for a second that the Bears can fund a dome on their own. The dome (by itself) on SF was estimated at $2.2 billion. If you have to build a whole stadium below it, the total is probably $3B-$4B. No matter what kind of real estate development the McCaskeys throw together at Arlington Park, they will not find $4 billion to build a domed stadium. Sooner or later they will come to the state government with their hand out for cash or tax breaks or both.
|
Yeah, I’m thinking, “What exactly are we expecting out of a family that is not ultra-rich, not adventurous, not visionary, and has never really worked in big real estate development? This is hardly the recipe for world-class mixed-use resort stadiums.
If the competition is state-of-the-art Allegiant Stadium, in Las Vegas which never has rain or snow or cold, and is right across from the airport and
one block away from the Strip… then Arlington Heights gets blown out of the water every time for events.
Oh, the tourists can just take an infrequent Metra with low capacity and infrequent scheduling! Yeah, right.
Unless, they are fronting for an upcoming new owner with true FU money, then Glendale, AZ is the most realistic outcome. Which would hardly be something to get excited over.
