HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2022, 8:04 PM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,334
My guess for a timeline......

I think it will be 18 months before they have the site plan and design ready and they start digging a stadium. That would be the spring '24sh. It will take 2 or 3 years to build the stadium. So perhaps the opening of 2026 football season? I think 2026 is the year they can break their lease. So my guess is that by either kickoff 2026 (a bit aggressive) or 2027 latest we will see football at the new AH location provided the funding can get set up in a timely manner. The city of Chicago should root for this timeline as well given that the money used from the penalty from breaking the lease can be used to pour back into SF into making into more viable for long-term use. I think the penalty money would be more? then the money they get from the Bears for rent anyhow.

......More generally concerning the Bears, Virginia McCaskey passing during that time is a very real possibility. There is supposedly a lot of internal squabbling and division within the family with a strong contingent wanting to sell the team and avoid massive estate tax penalties of some kind that will result from Virginia dying and the pie is divided up. Don't know enough about estate law to know how relevant that is.

I've thought there is a good chance as at any time in their history they will sell a majority share of ownership within the next year. That way the new owner can build according to his own wants and plans, and the Bears can probably sell for top dollar by allowing the new owner the flexibility to design and make arrangements for the stadium how they like. As part of the sale, I'm guessing the Halas family attempts to remain a strong minority partner in the development around the stadium. A bit of an off-the-cuff prediction but I think a reasonable one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2022, 8:13 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee View Post
My guess for a timeline......

I think it will be 18 months before they have the site plan and design ready and they start digging a stadium. That would be the spring of 2024. It will take 2 or 2.5 years to build the stadium. So perhaps the opening of 2026 football season? I think 2026 is the year they can break their lease. So my guess is that by either kickoff 2026 (a bit aggressive) and 2027 latest we will see football at the new location provided the funding can get set up in a timely manner.......
they'd also still have to demolish the exisiting arlington race track facilaiites and clear the site, no small task.

do you foresee that happening within the the next 18 months, or after that window once they have the plans and funding lined up?



SoFi, which was also built on a former horse track, took 7 years from when the track closed in 2013 to when the stadium opened in 2020.

granted, the bears might not go for such an extremely elaborate/expensive stadium design, but 4 years just sounds really aggressive to me.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Sep 2, 2022 at 8:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2022, 8:19 PM
galleyfox galleyfox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
Why would I want a Super Bowl in Chicago? We have to spend billions on a dome just to be considered for hosting a Super Bowl. Even then we have stiff competition from all the other cities playing the same game, including warm-weather cities that don't need a dome.

The juice ain't worth the squeeze - we're talking about a temporary boost to shops and restaurants in the NW burbs for one week every 20 years. Ask Detroit if their dome was worth it - and in Detroit there was at least some synergy with the rest of downtown.

And I don't believe for a second that the Bears can fund a dome on their own. The dome (by itself) on SF was estimated at $2.2 billion. If you have to build a whole stadium below it, the total is probably $3B-$4B. No matter what kind of real estate development the McCaskeys throw together at Arlington Park, they will not find $4 billion to build a domed stadium. Sooner or later they will come to the state government with their hand out for cash or tax breaks or both.

Yeah, I’m thinking, “What exactly are we expecting out of a family that is not ultra-rich, not adventurous, not visionary, and has never really worked in big real estate development? This is hardly the recipe for world-class mixed-use resort stadiums.

If the competition is state-of-the-art Allegiant Stadium, in Las Vegas which never has rain or snow or cold, and is right across from the airport and one block away from the Strip… then Arlington Heights gets blown out of the water every time for events.

Oh, the tourists can just take an infrequent Metra with low capacity and infrequent scheduling! Yeah, right.

Unless, they are fronting for an upcoming new owner with true FU money, then Glendale, AZ is the most realistic outcome. Which would hardly be something to get excited over.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2022, 8:29 PM
ithakas's Avatar
ithakas ithakas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 971
Quote:
No, in fact I think the plans were mainly put together to figure out what happens when the Bears leave. That whole area can be reimagined once we are no longer catering to an NFL team, so it's a good thing that the city has already hired planners to look into this issue.

How the city pays for it is a different question. Mansueto may chip in something. The Bears lease doesn't run out until 2030, so either the city can use that time to line up funding or the Bears break their lease and the city gets a nice fat check from the penalties.
That's great news! I think if the Bears departure comes with a revamped Museum Campus and a stronger park experience in Grant Park then it's a great trade for downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2022, 10:14 PM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
they'd also still have to demolish the exisiting arlington race track facilaiites and clear the site, no small task.

do you foresee that happening within the the next 18 months, or after that window once they have the plans and funding lined up?

SoFi, which was also built on a former horse track, took 7 years from when the track closed in 2013 to when the stadium opened in 2020.

granted, the bears might not go for such an extremely elaborate/expensive stadium design, but 4 years just sounds really aggressive to me.
I think the plan timeline would move around a bit depending on just how much they would want to demolish the current grandstand and build on top of it or if they want to put the stadium on a whole new footprint away from the current grandstand. Anyone's guess is as good as another at this point about that. That is one aspect I think we may get a better idea of next week. While I doubt even the Bears have hard-set plans on stadium design right now I am guessing they know where they want the stadium to be and maybe even if they want to go dome, retractable, or open air. My bet is they will settle on a dome, hopefully, similar to the Vikings stadium.

Another big aspect of timeline is the issue of will there be a relatively seamless agreement about road and infrastructure funding and planning. If there is dispute about road and infrastructure funding that could certainly hold things up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2022, 2:48 AM
untitledreality untitledreality is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by bnk View Post
So you want none of the things I mentioned.
Not for a single taxpayer dollar, no.

They are owners of an NFL franchise appraised at over five billion dollars.

Fuck em.

If they want to build a new stadium in the burbs they can do so with their own capital. Do I give a shit if the Super Bowl comes around every 20 years? Hell no. All of those other events can all be handled by existing sports infrastructure in the region...and if it can't land the once every 10 years sporting event that demands something larger oh well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2022, 4:55 PM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,280
I remember Super Bowl in Detroit. I went. Flash in the pan. It did nothing to sustain any success. Detroit’s downtown revival came from planning success and business investment. In the case of Chicago (regionally) it will do little except fill up hotels. We can already do that with our diverse food, entertainment and arts scene. Not a one hit wonder.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2022, 8:14 PM
left of center's Avatar
left of center left of center is offline
1st Ward
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Big Onion
Posts: 2,569
^ 100%

One weekend of Lollapalooza almost definitely has a bigger economic impact on the city than a whole season of home games for the Bears. Even if we get the Super Bowl, that's a few days of events plus the game itself. It's not worth the billions it would cost to once again renovate SF in order to keep the Bears downtown. And then it would be a 20+ year wait before we got it again. Detroit got the Super Bowl in 2006; its been 16 years and without a whiff of them being potential hosts again anytime soon (Phoenix is hosting '23, Vegas in '24, New Orleans in '25).
__________________
"Eventually, I think Chicago will be the most beautiful great city left in the world." -Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2022, 8:45 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee View Post
I think the plan timeline would move around a bit depending on just how much they would want to demolish the current grandstand and build on top of it or if they want to put the stadium on a whole new footprint away from the current grandstand. Anyone's guess is as good as another at this point about that. That is one aspect I think we may get a better idea of next week. While I doubt even the Bears have hard-set plans on stadium design right now I am guessing they know where they want the stadium to be and maybe even if they want to go dome, retractable, or open air. My bet is they will settle on a dome, hopefully, similar to the Vikings stadium.

Another big aspect of timeline is the issue of will there be a relatively seamless agreement about road and infrastructure funding and planning. If there is dispute about road and infrastructure funding that could certainly hold things up.
Retractable is easily the most expensive. I'm not aware of any such structure in the US that was funded without taxpayer money. The NFL's latest generation of stadiums includes plenty of fixed domes (SoFi, Allegiant, US Bank) that took more modest public handouts. These tend to be in purple states where there is more of a good-government culture. The retractable domes tend to be in red states where sending taxpayer money to football teams is less controversial - Mercedes Benz in Atlanta, State Farm in Glendale, AT&T in Arlington, Lucas Oil in Indy.

And of course there is the issue of construction costs also - Chicago has the 2nd-highest construction costs in the country after NYC, and due to those high costs NYC ended up doing an open-air stadium at the Meadowlands that still cost $2B. This seems like the most likely outcome to me once the McCaskeys get a reality check.

I'd be very surprised if the McCaskeys saved any part of the Arlington Park design, other than maybe the Kentucky horse farm landscaping. The existing grandstand has awful sight lines for football and the seat pitch was designed more for comfort than for packing in the crowds. If they're talking about a transit-oriented development, then they will probably want to push the stadium to the northwest corner of the site to leave room for TOD around the Metra stop.

Road improvements are maybe an issue but I think they can do a lot with TSM; for only 8 home games a year it makes more sense to have a small army of cops and traffic aides than to widen roads and add offramps.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...

Last edited by ardecila; Sep 4, 2022 at 8:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2022, 8:37 PM
JK47 JK47 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
I'd be very surprised if the McCaskeys saved any part of the Arlington Park design, other than maybe the Kentucky horse farm landscaping. The existing grandstand has awful sight lines for football and the seat pitch was designed more for comfort than for packing in the crowds. If they're talking about a transit-oriented development, then they will probably want to push the stadium to the northwest corner of the site to leave room for TOD around the Metra stop.

Road improvements are maybe an issue but I think they can do a lot with TSM; for only 8 home games a year it makes more sense to have a small army of cops and traffic aides than to widen roads and add offramps.

The roads along the southern and western boundaries fall within Rolling Meadows not Arlington Heights. Route 14 along the Northeast boundary is a State Highway so that falls under IDOT jurisdiction. So if neither the state nor Rolling Meadows (unlike Arlington Heights they won't benefit) are willing to cooperate then there won't be any road improvements.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2022, 12:46 PM
Principality Principality is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 94
Chicago should force them to give up the "Chicago" in their name, if they are moving outside the tax base.

Or maybe a license fee. 100 mill a year maybe?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2022, 2:03 PM
The Pimp's Avatar
The Pimp The Pimp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Chicago/Hamilton Lake
Posts: 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Principality View Post
Chicago should force them to give up the "Chicago" in their name, if they are moving outside the tax base.

Or maybe a license fee. 100 mill a year maybe?
I remember vividly back in the 70's when Mayor Richard J. Daley threatened the Bears that they would have to relinquish the "Chicago" name and use the Arlington Heights Bears.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2022, 2:10 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,635
i'm really curious to know what legal mechanism a city would use to take the city's name away from a private enterprise?

like, if i owned a plumbing supply company based in des plaines called "chicago plumbing supply", how could the city of chicago force me to change my company's name?

what legal rights do city's have over their own names? can cities own copyrights/trademarks on a name? how does that work in regard to a more generic name like "Columbus"?




anyway, there are plenty of NFL teams that play outside of the municipal limits of their namesake city, so the bears would be in solid company on that front.

New York Giants
New York Jets
Buffalo Bills
Washington Commanders
Miami Dolphins
Dallas Cowboys
Las Vegas Raiders
San Francisco 49ers
Los Angeles Rams
Los Angeles Chargers
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2022, 4:41 PM
urbanpln urbanpln is offline
urbanpln
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: chicago
Posts: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Principality View Post
Chicago should force them to give up the "Chicago" in their name, if they are moving outside the tax base.

Or maybe a license fee. 100 mill a year maybe?
Why? We are still one consolidated region. Our economic future is attached and furthermore, Chicago will still get some of the benefits generated from having an NFL franchise in the region. Chicago area fans attending a NY Giants game would probably visit NYC or any other fabulous city with the same location situation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2022, 6:25 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,421
Here's the Bears' vision for Arlington Heights
The team says it will not seek public funding for a new stadium, but it will for the rest of a surrounding entertainment district in the northwest suburb.
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/comm...-plan-unveiled






via Crain's Chicago Business
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2022, 6:26 PM
gebs's Avatar
gebs gebs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: South Loop
Posts: 790
Crain's just published some super early renderings:





__________________
Raise your horns.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2022, 6:27 PM
Randomguy34's Avatar
Randomguy34 Randomguy34 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago & Philly
Posts: 2,350
Wait, this actually looks....good
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2022, 6:27 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,421
Based on the site plan, it looks like they can still call themselves "the monsters of the midway."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2022, 6:28 PM
west-town-brad west-town-brad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 966
Quote:
Originally Posted by Principality View Post
Chicago should force them to give up the "Chicago" in their name, if they are moving outside the tax base.

Or maybe a license fee. 100 mill a year maybe?
the name of a place cannot be trademarked so no one could charge a fee for usage of said name
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2022, 6:29 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by gebs View Post
Crain's just published some super early renderings:
I scooped ya by one minute! lol
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 1:49 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.