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

[r18tdi]

A couple of Arlington Heights "midway" renderings that I don't remember seeing on here:




via Crain's

[chicagodeckerdude]

Those are some boring basic tubular things on those bridges. lazy design. im sure something to put in the drawing for now but not good. lol

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

Granted, they rarely ever have near sell-outs, but I would think they would want the option to readily expand the stadium IF the program ever became big-time to the point they wanted 50k-70k for a stadium. I also believe big stadiums with big crowds are a big recruitment tool for football programs.

Northwestern is the smallest school in the Big Ten. They have an enrollment of 22k (mostly post graduates) and the average Big Ten school is 44k. It makes sense that their stadium would be smaller. This seems very small.

For the Bears site, is that great lawn supposed to be for tailgating or general "gameday activities"? Looks like a lot of walking.

[Rizzo]

I’ve only been to Ryan field when Michigan plays Northwestern. It was cool from a historic perspective, but the stadium was really in need of replacement. Those close up views show this would have limestone cladding. Kind of a homage to soldier field.

[gebs]

As an NU grad, I accept your titles of "nerd" and "dork" with gusto.

[Steely Dan]

news:

Arlington Heights Trustees Have Concerns About Bears Stadium Plans
By Ryan Taylor • Published 6 hours ago

On Monday night, some trustees on the village board of Arlington Heights were unsatisfied with some facets of the Chicago Bears' stadium plans for Arlington Park during their meeting with the stadium committee.

"Trustees at the Committee of the whole meeting were concerned about the density of the proposed transit-oriented development, why there was not yet a stadium rendering available and about whether the proposed development would hurt Arlington Heights’ current downtown area," the Chicago Tribune reported.

There are growing concerns about the Bears multi-purpose district, which conflicts with the already existing downtown area Arlington Heights has at its disposal.

full article: https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loca...plans/2964276/

[BuildThemTaller]

'We are concerned there would be TWO places in Arlington Heights worth visiting!'

Sure, sure, they want the stadium and the hoards of people commuting mostly by car for two dozen events per year, but not ANOTHER walkable area just 2 miles away.

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller

'We are concerned there would be TWO places in Arlington Heights worth visiting!'

Sure, sure, they want the stadium and the hoards of people commuting mostly by car for two dozen events per year, but not ANOTHER walkable area just 2 miles away.

How many 75,000 person towns have multiple downtown-type areas 2 miles apart? I think they are worried that the existing downtown area (and local businesses) will suffer, seems a reasonable concern.

[BuildThemTaller]

Originally Posted by moorhosj1

How many 75,000 person towns have multiple downtown-type areas 2 miles apart? I think they are worried that the existing downtown area (and local businesses) will suffer, seems a reasonable concern.

I'm not going to look that up, but I can think of a lot of examples off the top of my head. Downtown Evanston, for example, doesn't suffer from development taking place around the Howard station. Development in Oak Park doesn't detract from development in Forest Park. Adding more residents and more pedestrians to Arlington Heights isn't going to suck the life out the rest of the city.

This is just typical NIMBY b.s. Adding a dense residential/commercial development in what is currently an underutilized area with such an excellent commuter rail station is only going to help improve property values. The hotels and other attractions can more than sustain more restaurants, bars, shops, etc.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by moorhosj1

How many 75,000 person towns have multiple downtown-type areas 2 miles apart? I think they are worried that the existing downtown area (and local businesses) will suffer, seems a reasonable concern.

yeah, i think it's a valid concern, IMO.

doesn't mean it should be a knee-jerk deal killer, but it's worth studying.

i did a metra pub-crawl through the NW burbs last june and we ended up in downtown AH as our last stop of the night. i don't know if it's a covid thing or not, or just a weekend thing, or whatever, but on saturday night they had closed off several streets in the heart of downtown AH to traffic and there was a really fun atmosphere of people eating, drinking, strolling, gathering and just plain old using their suburban downtown. it was alive!

that shouldn't be callously thrown away without taking a closer look at it.

[Rizzo]

I think both downtowns perform different functions. Even in the sense of Green Bay which I’ve been there during games, downtown GB attracts locals where the titletown district or whatever it’s called is mostly tourists or captures some weekly customers from the suburban areas. I’m pretty sure the bears district will be totally dead weeknights and about as busy as one of the area malls on a non-event weekend. It doesn’t have the robust density and diversified functions of AH downtown which will always be more competitive for business.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by moorhosj1

How many 75,000 person towns have multiple downtown-type areas 2 miles apart? I think they are worried that the existing downtown area (and local businesses) will suffer, seems a reasonable concern.

Plenty of suburbs have two train-oriented business districts. Winnetka has 2 downtowns (Winnetka and Hubbard Woods) plus a smaller one at Indian Hill. Highland Park has its own downtown and a 2nd business district around the Ravinia station. Glenview has its own downtown and then The Glen. Wheaton has its own downtown and then College Ave. Etc etc. This kind of pattern is super common.

I understand why AH doesn't want to cannibalize its own business district, but they're really separate offerings. Downtown AH is a lot of empty-nesters, fine dining, performing arts, etc. The stadium district will be more youthful, with bars/clubs, rock venues, sports-themed places, and apartments targeting younger people.

Really the apartments are key to the whole thing. Retail follows rooftops. People who live in the stadium district will support those businesses and still leave plenty of customers for AH's traditional downtown. If they try and scale back the density, then any bars and restaurants in the stadium district will have to cannibalize existing AH businesses.

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Plenty of suburbs have two train-oriented business districts. Winnetka has 2 downtowns (Winnetka and Hubbard Woods) plus a smaller one at Indian Hill. Highland Park has its own downtown and a 2nd business district around the Ravinia station. Glenview has its own downtown and then The Glen. Wheaton has its own downtown and then College Ave. Etc etc. This kind of pattern is super common.

I’m very familiar with Highland Park and Wheaton, not so much the others. Neither of those 2 “second districts” are anything like the Bear’s proposal for AH in size or ambition.

Also, each of those places developed organically together over decades to give us what we see today. Them merely existing doesn’t prove their isn’t business cannibalization, it just proves that they exist. In this case, you are plopping a giant planned development near an organically developed downtown.

I agree it comes down to adding more residents to make something like this additive overall.

[Steely Dan]

news:

Arlington Heights Approves Bears' Pre-Development Stadium Plan
By Ryan Taylor


The Village of Arlington Heights approved a pre-development plan for the Bears' stadium at Arlington Park on Monday.

The agreement vote is not binding, but the framework of the design and potential construction of the 326-acre land is agreed upon between the board and the Bears.

"This is not a binding obligation or either part, that it is a good faith agreement to work together to cooperate towards the exploration of the redevelopment of this property," said Cliff Stein, senior vice president and general counsel of the Chicago Bears.

The agreement also indicates the Bears' first public acknowledgment surrounding a request for public money. In September, the Bears concluded they will need public funding for infrastructure, and the stadium would not be built without it.

full article: https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loca...-plan/2990222/

[nomarandlee]

Haven't seen these releases yet

via Block Club Chicago

[Catmendue2]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Can't wait for the Jags to move here and become the Chicago Jagoffs. I will root for them just to spite Bears fans.

This could happen.

[CaptainJilliams]

Already posted this on the One Central thread, but figured it was relevant here. City releases promotional video highlighting what renovations at Soldier Field would look like.

While there is a paywall for the article, the video should be watchable:

New Soldier Field dome video revealed in effort to woo the Bears and their fans
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/spor...pictures-video

[bhawk66]

Holy sh#t! That's nothing short of a spectacular reimagination of Soldier Field and would be one of the best stadiums in the country to go to.

Probably too bad the Bears will never turn back now. Maybe a two-team city could be imagined after all.

It'd be a shame if these plans go to waste. Just amazing.

[donnie]

Video looks impressive but I don't know if Packer fans are going to be happy with the higher nose bleed seats to be thrown down from!

[nomarandlee]

Very cool video. Also looks like an easily 3billion proposition without Bears owning the stadium or any adjacent development.

I still really like the idea of retrofitting Soldier for the White Sox after their lease is up. I don't get the inkling that JR insists on owning his own stadium. Bringing in 30k eighty-one times per year would seem to be more ideal for the one-central developers anyway.
Plus it would probably cost 1/10 of what this dome scheme would cost to Joe taxpayer. The major expense would be knocking down the current west grandstand.