Posted Jun 5, 2026, 8:31 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Chicago area
Posts: 549
|
|
I don't get why so many are more upset with the Bears going to Hammond than the AH? I wanted the Bears to stay in Chicago but there never seemed to be any real viable plan to make that happen. Both Hammond and AH are Chicago suburbs well within the metropolitan area of Chicago and Hammond is much closer to the actual city boundaries than AH and closer to downtown as well. Hammond seems much more connected to the city with the industry, lakefront, and downtown skyline all visible from the location the Bears apparently selected. None of that is true of the AH site. AH just seems like a non-descript Chicago suburb with a nicer than average downtown but it seems so far away from the actual city unlike Hammond. I don't know if it is just red state blue state stuff that has people so upset but to me Hammond seems and feels more connected to Chicago than AH.
For full disclosure I live slightly closer to AH than Hammond so it would probably be easier for me to get to AH than Hammond for games but I seldom go to games and mostly consume the Bears on television. For me viewing from my TV, a stadium in Hammond will probably offer a better visual product than one in AH.
|