HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2024, 1:26 PM
Danillo Danillo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2024
Posts: 17
As a non-Chicagoan (I'm in Green Bay) who visits a couple of times a year because I love visiting Chicago, I don't think this plan gives me any additional reason to go to that area. I don't ever go to the ball fields in Grant Park, and these are just less accessible ball fields. If a reduced Soldier Field became a home for the Fire and Red Stars, I might go. Lets say they built it into a Heyward Field scale track and field facility that could host national meets, but then was publicly accessible to use most of the year, as someone who likes to run, I'd go out of my way to use it. I could go on, there are many things Soldier Field could become, and almost all of them would make me more likely to go there than 3 soccer fields and two ball diamonds.

Broadly, I dislike public funding of major league sports venues. But lets say that the Bears agreed to play in the new stadium for 50 years and improve and maintain it over that time. Maybe... maybe this plan or something like it would make sense. The problem is the last renovation isn't paid off when the team comes calling for another handout, and you can bet that in 20 years they are going to come back again saying they need X-billions more to stay in Chicago even though there are 20 years remining on paying for this plan. I just don't see it being a good deal in the long run.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
 

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



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:21 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.