CHICAGO | Da Bears | New Domed Lakefront Stadium Proposal

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

This whole thing is getting convoluted fast. I still think that the Bears will end up in AH for several reasons.

Most importantly, if the county's tax assessment remains firm, I am guessing any subsequent attempts for the Bears to sell to another buyer would likely take a decent financial hit on the sale.

Also, I think an essential priority is to own their stadium and, ideally, diversify their revenue streams with an adjacent commercial/retail ownership licensing agreement. Without selling their AH land, would they be able to afford any city parcels where they could theoretically do that? Namely, longshot and complicated purchase agreements at the Sox site, UC lots, Lincoln Yards etc., that would likely involve new zoning agreements?

From where I see things, it seems that the AH is holding all the cards, and the Bears are scrambling to get even marginally better terms somehow.

Valid points. I have no data to show but I remember reading something like the Packers make 20% of revenues off property incomes and parking. I mean that’s huge up against tv revenues. And that’s before they built the entertainment district. It’s probably much higher now. Think about the experiences the Cubs provide on their periphery with the hotel, restaurant / bar leases, sportsbook and rooftop bleachers.

Regarding the grand stand, it so specific to horse race spectating there’s no chance it could be adapted. It’s a customized structure that would require increased maintenance and could never see its optimal utilization. From a preservation standpoint, energy and capital should be focused elsewhere. And it’s not like a soldier field situation where you could save the facades and outfit a new stadium inside. It’s just a competent design couldn’t be afforded 20 years ago

[Klippenstein]

I understand why they wouldn’t keep it, but it’s similar to Chicago. Quick to demolish instead of thinking about historic character and placemaking. They’ll be fine without it, but I think the extra cost in maintenance would bring enough value to be worth the effort.

[Rizzo]

Looking at preservation broadly though. Federal. State. Regional. Preservation dollars should be funneled toward saving historic buildings in our historic neighborhoods in the city and older suburbs. It’s shocking to see intact 19th century buildings demolished. Entire business districts and neighborhoods could be saved for the price of renovating the grand stand. Because…you know any private entity would insist on public historic preservation grants and I really doubt it’s qualifying structure due to its age

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by Klippenstein

I understand why they wouldn’t keep it, but it’s similar to Chicago. Quick to demolish instead of thinking about historic character and placemaking. They’ll be fine without it, but I think the extra cost in maintenance would bring enough value to be worth the effort.

Unfortunately there's incentive for the owners to demolish. The more they can "unimprove" a property, the lower the tax assessment falls, which makes the local govt all the more willing to hand out a big fat TIF.

[twister244]

A little bit of news on the stadium front - Bears are mulling the lot next to the existing stadium.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...qua-story.html

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by twister244

A little bit of news on the stadium front - Bears are mulling the lot next to the existing stadium.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...qua-story.html

I think we should get confirmation from other sources and not just take the word of a podcaster.

I am immensely skeptical that the Bears are paying for a stadium on land that the city is forbidden to sell.

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

I am immensely skeptical that the Bears are paying for a stadium on land that the city is forbidden to sell.

Their current stadium sits on land the city is forbidden to sell, no? The Bears paid $200 million of the $623 million renovation 20 years ago. They spent nearly $200 million just to purchase the property in Arlington Heights.

[Via Chicago]

watching everyone debase themselves in this is the same as watching the amazon HQ2 debacle.

this is all negotiating tactics. let them go and let the door hit them.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by moorhosj1

Their current stadium sits on land the city is forbidden to sell, no? The Bears paid $200 million of the $623 million renovation 20 years ago. They spent nearly $200 million just to purchase the property in Arlington Heights.

Chicago paid for the vast majority of Soldier Field.

The Bears are fully welcome to donate a new stadium to the city, but they are not allowed to own or manage it.

The chances of any organization just giving away a couple billion dollars for someone else to own is very slim.

So common sense tells us it’s either another bluff to manipulate Arlington Heights, or a different scheme to get taxpayer funds.

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

Chicago paid for the vast majority of Soldier Field.

The Bears are fully welcome to donate a new stadium to the city, but they are not allowed to own or manage it.

The chances of any organization just giving away a couple billion dollars for someone else to own is very slim.

So common sense tells us it’s either another bluff to manipulate Arlington Heights, or a different scheme to get taxpayer funds.

The Bears paid for roughly 30% of the Soldier Field renovation. Only 4 teams in the NFL own and operate their own stadiums.

The Bears want more control over the gameday experience and the city/park district could absolutely make that happen. In our own city, the White Sox don't own their park, but they have almost full control over events there. This might be what the Bears are looking for, you and I have no idea.

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by moorhosj1

The Bears paid for roughly 30% of the Soldier Field renovation. Only 4 teams in the NFL own and operate their own stadiums.

The Bears want more control over the gameday experience and the city/park district could absolutely make that happen. In our own city, the White Sox don't own their park, but they have almost full control over events there. This might be what the Bears are looking for, you and I have no idea.

pretty sure they want to replicate the Cubs situation where they own the team, the stadium, the surrounding blocks, the hotel, the TV network, etc etc

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by moorhosj1

The Bears paid for roughly 30% of the Soldier Field renovation. Only 4 teams in the NFL own and operate their own stadiums.

The Bears want more control over the gameday experience and the city/park district could absolutely make that happen. In our own city, the White Sox don't own their park, but they have almost full control over events there. This might be what the Bears are looking for, you and I have no idea.

The city/park district absolutely can not make this happen no matter how much they want it. Unlike the White Sox stadium, Soldier Field is on land under the protection of the Public Trust Doctrine.


A private company is not allowed to own lakefront property.
They are not allowed to manage lakefront property.
They are not allowed to restrict access to the public beyond what is absolutely necessary to host their event.
They are not allowed to profit from land use beyond basic human sustenance and transportation and limited event hosting.

To change these restrictions would require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

This is not up for debate. There are dozens of court cases starting with the U.S. Supreme Court spelling out exactly how Chicago’s lakefront was allowed to be used.


Giving the Bears control over events is illegal. A private company restricting access and profiting from the lakefront is a direct violation of the Public Trust. The courts would rip up any such agreement the moment a single member of the public submitted a lawsuit. They’ve done it before with far more powerful organizations.


The lakefront proposal also has the implications that the city should pay for the Bears new stadium again!

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

A private company is not allowed to own lakefront property.
They are not allowed to manage lakefront property.
They are not allowed to restrict access to the public beyond what is absolutely necessary to host their event.
They are not allowed to profit from land use beyond basic human sustenance and transportation and limited event hosting.

To change these restrictions would require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

This is not up for debate. There are dozens of court cases starting with the U.S. Supreme Court spelling out exactly how Chicago’s lakefront was allowed to be used.

Today, the Bears cannot determine which employees work a home game, that is handled by the park district. It is possible for them to reach an agreement where the Bears have more control of the gameday experience, but still don’t own the land. Like I said, only 4 NFL teams own their stadium.

[skysoar]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

The city/park district absolutely can not make this happen no matter how much they want it. Unlike the White Sox stadium, Soldier Field is on land under the protection of the Public Trust Doctrine.


A private company is not allowed to own lakefront property.
They are not allowed to manage lakefront property.
They are not allowed to restrict access to the public beyond what is absolutely necessary to host their event.
They are not allowed to profit from land use beyond basic human sustenance and transportation and limited event hosting.

To change these restrictions would require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

This is not up for debate. There are dozens of court cases starting with the U.S. Supreme Court spelling out exactly how Chicago’s lakefront was allowed to be used.


Giving the Bears control over events is illegal. A private company restricting access and profiting from the lakefront is a direct violation of the Public Trust. The courts would rip up any such agreement the moment a single member of the public submitted a lawsuit. They’ve done it before with far more powerful organizations.


The lakefront proposal also has the implications that the city should pay for the Bears new stadium again!

This may be true, but obviously something is going on between the GM and Mayor Johnson. Otherwise, what would be the purpose of even a consideration of this site. Yes, it could be a negotiating ploy, but the other angle is the role that Dunns One Central project, that the mayor stated he is very much open to might also be in the mix. Also, the GM of the Bears have publicly stated his being impressed with Chicago's lakefront. So, could a public/private development with the Bears receiving a sizable portion of the commercial component[restaurants,hotels,etc be possible.?

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by skysoar

This may be true, but obviously something is going on between the GM and Mayor Johnson. Otherwise, what would be the purpose of even a consideration of this site. Yes, it could be a negotiating ploy, but the other angle is the role that Dunns One Central project, that the mayor stated he is very much open to might also be in the mix. Also, the GM of the Bears have publicly stated his being impressed with Chicago's lakefront. So, could a public/private development with the Bears receiving a sizable portion of the commercial component[restaurants,hotels,etc be possible.?

It is a complete negotiating ploy for the reasons that galleyfox stated. Whoever decided to float this nugget is not very sophisticated as even the rubes in the Arlington Heights Village Offices know that is the case.

The only prospects of a lakefront'sh stadium are the South Works site, which is too darn remote, I'd presume. The only other site maybe the north side of the old Michael Reese Footprint and McCormick Place truck staging yards. It could be integrated into the wider MP complex, which makes a lot of sense. I thought I remembered reading where those parcels are spoken for with another development though.

[Ahoi]

The only thing I say is:
Redevelop the old Soldier Field and build One Central in the back.

Or build the new stadium (soccer stadium) as planned a few years ago on the Lincoln Yards site.

[Randomguy34]

LMAOOOOO, looks like we need to change the thread title again

The Bears' real focus is the lakefront, not Arlington Heights

The story is that, after serious flirtation with moving to the suburbs — and in particular to Arlington Heights, going so far as to purchase and demolish Arlington International Racecourse — the team now has quietly but surely made building a new home in the central area of Chicago its focus.

Though this game is far from over, multiple sources in government and close to the team tell me building in the central area is not just a lever to extort better tax terms from Arlington Heights, but the real goal.

If the team get its way under plans that could go public soon, it will get, on the parking lot just south of Soldier Field, a brand-new, state-of-the-art domed stadium, one capable of hosting not only the Bears but Final Four basketball tournaments, Super Bowls and other big events that have tended to skip Chicago for lack of a suitable venue.

The deal would be financed, at least in part, by tapping a unique bonding clause in the law that governs the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority — a clause that expires at the end of this year, informed sources say. And if I read the tea leaves right, Soldier Field would be largely converted to public parks and athletic fields, a step that could ease legal difficulties over building on the lakefront.

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/poli...ts-sources-say

[Kngkyle]

I'd love to see a scaled down Soldier Field turned into a soccer-specific stadium for the Chicago Fire. That makes a lot more sense than Guaranteed Rate which is entirely the wrong shape and size for soccer. It would be quite the trifecta to have 3 essentially new major league stadiums downtown in the next decade. Maybe then hosting the Olympics would actually make financial sense...
 

Some glimpse of how financing could work, for at least part of the cost -

Cost is a huge imponderable. But people in the sports world are aware of a special clause in the state law that governs the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority, the agency that issued bonds to finance Guaranteed Rate Field and the reconstruction of Soldier Field a generation ago.

According to Maurice Scholten, president of the Taxpayers Federation of Illinois, the clause was tucked without much notice into a state budget implementation bill in 2021. The clause would allow the agency to refinance debt and issue new bonds for sports projects above ISFA’s current cap of $150 million for ISFA-owned facilities and $399 million for other property owned by other agencies, such as Soldier Field-title holder the Chicago Park District.

With ISFA having $488.6 million in outstanding debt as of June 30, 2023 — and all of its debt scheduled to be retired by 2032 — the way could be cleared for hundreds of millions in new bonds. However, Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf is reportedly eyeing that financing source, too, for a new baseball stadium in the South Loop. So it’s not clear whether ISFA funds from an existing 2% tax on Chicago hotel revenues would be sufficient to pay for both projects.

[BrinChi]

Financing aside, I'm not understanding how a new stadium build on the lakefront is legally even possible, given the lakefront ordinance. Is it because the new stadium would still be publicly owned?

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by BrinChi

Financing aside, I'm not understanding how a new stadium build on the lakefront is legally even possible, given the lakefront ordinance. Is it because the new stadium would still be publicly owned?

The Lucas museum was planned to be publicly owned too, but shitheels like the Friends of the Park and their supporters shot that down. I hope this gets shot does too, because Soldier Field is RIGHT THERE...but we're in this situation now because the piss poor renovation from 2003 is directly the fault of the City, Chicago Park District, Daley and the Bears organization. It SHOULD have been planned/designed better as an enclosed facility, in order to accommodate year-round events. But when too many idiots with power are in the same room trying to figure out how to do something, it's inevitable that it will come out shitty.