HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #201  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2021, 7:37 PM
galleyfox galleyfox is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Handro View Post
No singular event or accolade will raise a cities profile. But taking every opportunity to get in front of the world and showcase the beauty of the city does, over time, make an impact. Right now the ONLY things Chicago is known for among the masses are crime and cold weather. Chicago does nothing to change that. Keeping the focus on the amount of industrial SF leased in the region or a new call center on the south side is not going to change the narrative on its own.0
Soldier Field had already hosted the World Cup with the opening ceremony in 1994.

The city’s local basketball team with Michael Jordan made that entire World Cup a complete afterthought in world sporting history.

Mass immigration from Mexico to the lowly food processing and logistics warehouses completely changed the fortune of Chicago vs. most other rust belt cities.

Many of the teens who attend Lollapalooza eventually decide to live in Chicago full time which is more than what most foreign tourists will do

It would be incredible to have a festivity like the 1893 World’s Fair, but that was the culmination not the cause of a golden age. There were endless expositions that followed in other cities that had minimal impact. St. Louis hosted the first American Olympics and that went nowhere

It’s ridiculous to hanker after a one-off event where Chicago would be a sideshow from the start when there’s a good chance the call center will have the more profound real world impact.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #202  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2021, 8:10 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
This rendering is actually not on The 78 site but on Dearborn Park I and II site...

I don't recall ever seeing this rendering, though in 1985 I was very much in the middle of the neighborhood debate over a White Sox stadium at Clark & Roosevelt. But look more carefully: the rendering shows the area from Harrison to 16th west of Clark—not Dearborn Park.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #203  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2021, 8:14 PM
BuildThemTaller BuildThemTaller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Long Island City, NY
Posts: 889
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
This one definitely is The 78 site though...

Didn't realize Vancouver stole Chicago's plans.

https://objects.artspan.com/member/h...00/2635759.jpg

Last edited by Tom In Chicago; Sep 23, 2021 at 9:39 PM. Reason: Please use hyperlinks for off topic / unsourced images
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #204  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2021, 2:40 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
I don't recall ever seeing this rendering, though in 1985 I was very much in the middle of the neighborhood debate over a White Sox stadium at Clark & Roosevelt. But look more carefully: the rendering shows the area from Harrison to 16th west of Clark—not Dearborn Park.
Apparently this rendering is from 1967, so long before the 1985 proposal you debated: https://www.southsidesox.com/2012/11...south-loop-sox

This would have been shortly after the UIC plan for the railyard site died, and Daley tore down Little Italy instead. But that still left the railyards undeveloped, so this was Daley's Plan B. (Somehow Del Webb was involved?)

Dearborn Park I would not be proposed for another decade, and the railyards were very much up for grabs if a deal could be struck with the railroads.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...

Last edited by ardecila; Sep 24, 2021 at 2:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #205  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2021, 2:52 PM
west-town-brad west-town-brad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by southoftheloop View Post
If Chicago values itself as a global capital, it should be a host for the world's most watched event. New York, LA, DC are hosting – and also cities like Nashville, Kansas City, Orlando, Baltimore....
yes, Chicago does not have the name recognition that KANSAS CITY will soon have.... hilarious....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #206  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2021, 4:22 PM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
While I don't share the strong distaste for Soldier Field, on this we can agree - that is a phenomenal stadium. And it should be, as I just saw the estimated development cost, and even given sky-high expectations, I'm flabbergasted.
I agree. Probably still over half the of the stadiums, other than the newer stadiums (Atlanta, Minneapolis, LA, Dallas, Vegas, Seattle, Houston) look shlocky aesthetically, both inside and outside compared to Soldier. Many look totally utilitarian, uninspired, unoriginal, and formulaic (Nashville, Charlotte, Tampa, Denver etc). I think the sweep of the lux boxes on the east side of SF actually set it apart as one of the better-looking stadiums. Also while the colonnades and bowl are awkward as hell they still give the stadium a unique and interesting character which is far more than one could say about half the stadiums.

It is simply too small and owned by someone else. That is really the fault of the Bears because their demands were that it be on the lakefront and outdoors. It was not the city that demand they build under 62k. They set the parameters and now they know that those parameters suck.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #207  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2021, 4:25 PM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
I don't recall ever seeing this rendering, though in 1985 I was very much in the middle of the neighborhood debate over a White Sox stadium at Clark & Roosevelt. But look more carefully: the rendering shows the area from Harrison to 16th west of Clark—not Dearborn Park.
The Sox forever blew that one not moving to the South Loop and getting the after-work crowd from downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #208  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2021, 6:20 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,352
Ironically, it was the desire for a new Bears stadium that made possible Dearborn Park. George Halas had taken an option on the C&WI/Dearborn Station railyards to possibly build a Bears stadium there, but Da Mare apparently wasn't in favor. The option was still in effect, however, when downtown business leaders formed the Century 21 Corporation to actually build the new-town-in-town proposed in the 1973 Chicago 21 plan.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #209  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2021, 7:38 PM
southoftheloop southoftheloop is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by west-town-brad View Post
yes, Chicago does not have the name recognition that KANSAS CITY will soon have.... hilarious....
Maybe next time you'll catch the argument, because that clearly wasn't it...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #210  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2021, 4:24 AM
left of center's Avatar
left of center left of center is offline
1st Ward
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Big Onion
Posts: 2,458
Bears have signed a purchase agreement for the Arlington International Racecourse

https://theathletic.com/news/bears-s...e/QTJyEXELsaMt

If they do move, this probably torpedoes One Central, which seemed like a real long shot anyway.
__________________
"Eventually, I think Chicago will be the most beautiful great city left in the world." -Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #211  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2021, 12:33 PM
CaptainJilliams CaptainJilliams is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by left of center View Post
Bears have signed a purchase agreement for the Arlington International Racecourse

https://theathletic.com/news/bears-s...e/QTJyEXELsaMt

If they do move, this probably torpedoes One Central, which seemed like a real long shot anyway.
Agreed, having the station and connection to Soldier Field was a central point in their pitch. I don't think the soccer team or any concerts are going to have enough draw to justify the bill of this plan.

I don't foresee this plan going forward.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #212  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2021, 12:39 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
I think this is a huge message to Lightfoot. Get on the ball or lose it.
__________________
The only thing better than a V10 is a V12

....but get a V8 before it's too late
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #213  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2021, 12:50 PM
glowrock's Avatar
glowrock glowrock is offline
Becoming Chicago-fied!
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chicago (West Avondale)
Posts: 19,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
I think this is a huge message to Lightfoot. Get on the ball or lose it.
It's time to leave it in that case. Screw the Bears. I understand making enhancements/expansions to Soldier Field, even finding a way of building a new stadium on/adjacent to the current stadium, but there's no way in hell the Bears shouldn't be paying for the majority of the costs involved. I'm actually more than a little sick and tired of NFL stadia becoming these absolute beasts already. I used to think the "new" Mile High Stadium in Denver had a massive footprint, but these new ones (L.A./L.V, Arlington, etc... are absolute mammoths that are completely reliant on being nowhere near the center of cities. Fuck 'em.

Aaron (Glowrock)
__________________
"Deeply corrupt but still semi-functional - it's the Chicago way." -- Barrelfish
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #214  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2021, 1:21 PM
sentinel's Avatar
sentinel sentinel is offline
Plenary pleasures.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,818
Proof that the Bears are just a business (like any other NFL team or major league sports team, for that matter), and don't give two shits about where they're located..as long as those sweet, sweet concession monies still keep coming, they really don't give a shit if they win, either.

I highly suspect that current Bears fan base is mostly suburban anyway, so in a way, a move to a shitty, car-oriented suburb makes sense..
__________________
Don't be shy. Step into the light.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #215  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2021, 1:43 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
..
__________________
The only thing better than a V10 is a V12

....but get a V8 before it's too late

Last edited by the urban politician; Sep 29, 2021 at 3:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #216  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2021, 1:52 PM
Chisouthside Chisouthside is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Silicon Valley/Chicago
Posts: 385
That view of downtown during games is gonna be replaced by views of sprawl.
As if it worked for the 49rs moving almost 40 miles to Santa Clara im sure it'll work for the Bears.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #217  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2021, 1:55 PM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 6,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisouthside View Post
That view of downtown during games is gonna be replaced by views of sprawl.
As if it worked for the 49rs moving almost 40 miles to Santa Clara im sure it'll work for the Bears.
It is funny how many pro sports teams think that changing a location or building a new stadium is going to fix their organization and poor coaching.

Didn't the Bears pull this in the mid 90s? I wouldn't say they're lost to AH just yet.
__________________
Chicago Maps:
* New Construction https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...B0&usp=sharing
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #218  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2021, 2:22 PM
bnk's Avatar
bnk bnk is online now
પટેલ. કે ન
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: chicagoland
Posts: 12,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisouthside View Post
That view of downtown during games is gonna be replaced by views of sprawl.
As if it worked for the 49rs moving almost 40 miles to Santa Clara im sure it'll work for the Bears.
If they move they will still have the shots scanning the skyline from the lake via drones. Even now most of the skyline on TV and other shots of the city, do not include the stadium. Expect that to continue.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #219  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2021, 2:34 PM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by glowrock View Post
It's time to leave it in that case. Screw the Bears. I understand making enhancements/expansions to Soldier Field, even finding a way of building a new stadium on/adjacent to the current stadium, but there's no way in hell the Bears shouldn't be paying for the majority of the costs involved. I'm actually more than a little sick and tired of NFL stadia becoming these absolute beasts already. I used to think the "new" Mile High Stadium in Denver had a massive footprint, but these new ones (L.A./L.V, Arlington, etc... are absolute mammoths that are completely reliant on being nowhere near the center of cities. Fuck 'em.

Aaron (Glowrock)
Absolutely on all accounts. If the Bears want to build a new stadium south of McCormick Place or they want to build south of the Amtrak yards on Roosevelt etc. give them the blessing. Otherwise, it's time to bid farewell. The Bears had one shot in 2000 to get taxpayer help with a stadium and they obviously blew it in not foreseeing their own requirements 20 years on. They are the ones who knew they would be hemmed in on the lakefront. They knew they would have the smallest stadium in the league and they wanted it open air. A new stadium in A.H. will never have quite the cache or draw that the same stadium would have near the lakefront downtown.

And even though public tax financing will be DOA for the Bears in A.H. how have we not passed laws as a society against taxpayer financing of professional sports stadiums yet It's about damn time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #220  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2021, 2:58 PM
Handro Handro is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,216
I'm pretty ambivalent on a move, on the one hand SF is iconic and having the skyline as a backdrop cannot be beat. Less superficially though, the stadium itself sucks, is miserable to access whether on foot or by car, and the size, layout, and exposure to the elements are extremely limiting from a programming perspective (for both the city and the Bears.)

But I do think that a few days after one of the most horrible performances in NFL history, continuing a tradition of mediocrity to downright embarrassing putridness, it seems gallingly arrogant to pursue a multi-billion dollar state-of-the-art stadium for one of the two or three teams that can be counted among the annual laughingstocks of the league.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:21 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.