CHICAGO | The Bears are maybe moving somewhere (who the fuck knows)

[2PRUROCKS!]

[QUOTE=nomarandlee;10178879]It is true that MR is approximately one mile further south than Soldier Field from a given point in downtown. Let's be honest here, though 90% of fans will arrive at either new stadium site by car. Even when using PT, the proposed SF holds no distinct advantage. The Green Line @ Cermak to the McDoalnds on MLK (where the new stadium could go) is an 18-minute walk. The same Green Line stop to the Waldron Deck is a 27-minute walk. An IC stop could be easily integrated into the MR stadium complex mere steps away from the new stadium, while an even more expensive restructuring of the current dilapidated IC stop by at Waldron Deck is likely a part of the Bear's plans. So the IC factor and expense is a wash at best, but I'd give the potential advantage to an integrated IC station at MR.
Also the MCC busway could be fed directly into the stadium at MR so there is that major advantage.[QUOTE=nomarandlee;10178879]

For the actual MR site the most logical CTA station to travel to and from would be the Green line station at 35th St. That is about 1.1 miles and a 25min walk. The Roosevelt station is 0.8 miles and a 19 min walk from Soldier Field. In addition to being closer, the Roosevelt station provides direct connections without transfers to multiple lines. In addition to this there is already an 18th St IC station serving SF but no station currently servicing MR. Also LSD already more easily connects to SF than MR. This is what I mean when I say the present transit situation is better for SF than at MR and SF/MC presently isn't good enough. Just to bring MR on par with the current situation at SF will cost over $1 billion. Increase that even more if you need to acquire and relocate the Advocate and McDonalds sites.

The Bears supposedly want $1 billion to improve the transit and overall configuration of the MC area including a pedestrian bride to Northerly Island that doesn't directly benefit them but improves the overall MC campus and access to Northerly Island and Lakefront that benefits all Chicagoans not just a stadium like the MR improvements you propose would.

I also think you underestimate how many people would take transit to events at a new stadium. Almost all events I have gone to at SF I have used public transportation for at least a portion of the trip and judging by the foot traffic and busyness at stations I would say well over 10% use public transportation.

The devil is in the details and I haven't seen the Bears actual proposal so maybe it will be good or awful or somewhere in the middle. I'm not against the MR site I just think you seriously underestimate the cost and logistics involved.

[ithakas]

Reinsdorf just needs to get the state to agree to let him replace their surface parking lots with a multi-level parking garage and start developing the area around Comiskey. It would be a net for everyone involved, rather than a billion-dollar handout. The existing stadium's experience is pretty nice, but maybe they can upgrade a few things to refresh it. They really just need to make the surrounding area part of the attraction, so it becomes a regular destination for more Chicagoans.

Bears probably should just work through an alternative site (south of McCormick, or my idea of Ashland/the river) or leave for AH. I think the opportunity cost of building a huge stadium on the south lot for ten game days a year is too great, to say nothing of the actual $. The south lot is the key to unlocking a better version of Grant Park in the future, something downtown desperately needs.

Related just needs to copy the built environment of Printers Row—midrise, parking-light, tight commercial corridors, maybe a couple taller towers on Roosevelt, get the city to extend the 36 bus south or increase service on the 24. It's sitting between two of the most dynamic areas in the city in Printers Row and Chinatown, and already has an anchor in DPI.

In general, I think we need to stop thinking that massive events are the only way to invigorate downtown, and that all of our major events need to be located there (with all its requisite traffic from the suburbs). If we had a downtown that people loved more—one with a better pedestrian experience, more public spaces, better retail corridors, etc.—coming downtown would be the event itself.

[Toasty Joe]

Originally Posted by ithakas

In general, I think we need to stop thinking that massive events are the only way to invigorate downtown, and that all of our major events need to be located there (with all its requisite traffic from the suburbs). If we had a downtown that people loved more—one with a better pedestrian experience, more public spaces, better retail corridors, etc.—coming downtown would be the event itself.

True but big events serve as a great form of marketing for the city. Suburbanites who enjoy their experience might consider moving here as empty nesters vs. heading to FL. Teens come to Bears games, Lolla, etc. and look into colleges here or to move here after graduation. Out-of-towners see downtown Chicago and realize the media narrative is dramatically different than reality, and maybe consider more trips + open to jobs/moving here in the future. This is not to mention the hotel, dining, entertainment, and other tax $ being collected while they're here. See Taylor Swift's 3-day boost to the local economy of ours and many other cities.

As with most things, it's all about a good mix.

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by 2PRUROCKS!

For the actual MR site the most logical CTA station to travel to and from would be the Green line station at 35th St. That is about 1.1 miles and a 25min walk. The Roosevelt station is 0.8 miles and a 19 min walk from Soldier Field.

For the MR site, are you using the actual hospital footprint in the SE quadrant? I have always thought the best potential site would be the NW corner where McDonald's on MLK Drive sits, so I measured from there.

Either MR location is not at a real disadvantage via CTA compared to the Waldron Deck/Lakefront location. Google Maps shows me 28 minutes from Roosevelt Station to Waldron Deck (which is far north as the new SF stadium is discussed).

In addition to being closer, the Roosevelt station provides direct connections without transfers to multiple lines. In addition to this there is already an 18th St IC station serving SF but no station currently servicing MR

As interesting as the Green Line and IC discussion is, it would be worthwhile to know just how many fans use the IC and CTA (train, not bus) for Bears games currently. My guess? Not even 10%.

Building and integrating a new station with the stadium at the North Michael Reese site would not be difficult. One could argue that even the current MCC station would suffice and provide a more pleasant climate-controlled walk to a theoretical stadium compared to the current, exposed, and dilapidated 18th IC station (that may even be rebuilt as part of the lakefront stadium plan. So a new station, either way, is a wash).

Also LSD already more easily connects to SF than MR.

If that is the case then what are the Bears talking about needing to make it more acccesible?

The MR stadium could be easily accessed via 31st Street, S.Lake Park Drive, MLK Dr, and Moe Drive. Plus, I think it is fair to assume that most city and suburban fans would be coming west via I-55 anyhow.

Just to bring MR on par with the current situation at SF will cost over $1 billion. Increase that even more if you need to acquire and relocate the Advocate and McDonalds sites.

I'm just not seeing what you are seeing regarding the expense of MR.

However, I think providing all the mysterious new access roads and lakefront parking garages and demolishing the current Soldier Field would incur far more needless costs than anywhere at the MR site.

The Bears supposedly want $1 billion to improve the transit and overall configuration of the MC area including a pedestrian bride to Northerly Island that doesn't directly benefit them but improves the overall MC campus and access to Northerly Island and Lakefront that benefits all Chicagoans not just a stadium like the MR improvements you propose would.

The city can spend 50 million on a pedestrian bridge to Northerly without demolishing SF and building an expensive 7k-10k underground parking garage on the lakefront. It should not be treated as some grand package deal.
We do not need a new lakefront stadium and the Bears to come to save the day to make Northerly Island finally happen. That is a false choice.

I also think you underestimate how many people would take transit to events at a new stadium. Almost all events I have gone to at SF I have used public transportation for at least a portion of the trip and judging by the foot traffic and busyness at stations I would say well over 10% use public transportation.

Why would people take PT to Waldron Deck along the lakefront compared to the degree to which they take it to SF now, when they are effectively at the same spot? Unless you are entertaining the multi-billion fantasies of the One Central development being realized (which I am most definitely not).

I think you are overestimating the number of people who use PT for SF events, especially in the winter months. I also think the potential links via the busway and IC station at MR could help capture more PT users than a new SF could ever hope to.

The devil is in the details and I haven't seen the Bears actual proposal so maybe it will be good or awful or somewhere in the middle. I'm not against the MR site I just think you seriously underestimate the cost and logistics involved.

Perhaps. I see the MR infrastructure as essentially set to go, except perhaps a new IC station (and the current MCC station is likely just fine) and a new pedestrian bridge connecting the lakefront to the MR site (not required, but would be nice). Rebuilding the road network through MR will happen in the next five years, anyway we all expect.

...It will be interesting as just an exercise to see what the Bears imagine and construct as improvements to the lakefront and new SF site. I expect a needless boondoggle, but we hopefully will see soon.

[Randomguy34]

The city rejects a new revenue source in Sox, Bears stadium talks

Mayor Brandon Johnson’s administration is holding high-stakes discussions with the Chicago Bears and Chicago White Sox this week as the two teams try to arrange a financial deal that would allow both teams to build new stadiums in the city.
....
To bring more tax revenue to the overall pie to be divided between the teams, an idea to set aside the portion of revenue from the city’s amusement tax on ticket sales at the stadiums was floated to the city, but apparently rejected, according to sources familiar with the meeting.

The White Sox pushed the idea, according to the sources, but adding the extra revenue would benefit both teams.

The amusement tax is a 9% charge on ticket sales for entertainment, including sports stadiums, theaters and concerts and has been broadened over time to include cable subscriptions and streaming services. The tax is expected to bring in $262 million to the city in 2024, according to city budget documents.
....
With the amusement tax apparently rejected, it is unclear what avenues are left for the teams other than private money.

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/poli...-rejected-city

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

The city rejects a new revenue source in Sox, Bears stadium talks

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/poli...-rejected-city

Here is an incentive for the Sox and Bears. Every year, each team takes first place in their respective divisions over the next twenty years, they will each get access to 1/4 of that amusement tax. Spend money to make money.

[2PRUROCKS!]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

Here is an incentive for the Sox and Bears. Every year, each team takes first place in their respective divisions over the next twenty years, they will each get access to 1/4 of that amusement tax. Spend money to make money.

OOO...I like that idea!

[2PRUROCKS!]

Quote:
Just to bring MR on par with the current situation at SF will cost over $1 billion. Increase that even more if you need to acquire and relocate the Advocate and McDonalds sites.

"I'm just not seeing what you are seeing regarding the expense of MR.

However, I think providing all the mysterious new access roads and lakefront parking garages and demolishing the current Soldier Field would incur far more needless costs than anywhere at the MR site."

There is nothing that can be done at the MR site without tons of money to bring it as close to multiple CTA rail lines as SF currently is. Any transit upgrades connected to a new stadium south of SF would also benefit the MC, Northerly Island, Burnham Harbor, Lakefront access, and McCormick Place not just a stadium so I think there is more justification for the expense here than at MR.

[Busy Bee]

https://link.chicagobusiness.com/cli...8ce5fB56b5f2e2

[Kngkyle]

It's comical that Reisdorf is still not offering a single penny in private money for his desired stadium while the Bears are offering $2 billion. If that continues to hold true then all parties should just tell him to fuck off and stop wasting everyone's time.

[BrinChi]

Right, unless the stadium would be publicly owned and the Whitesox pays somewhere in the neighborhood of $7-10 million/month in rent. Then sure, let's get that public financing going!