Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila
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.