Quote:
Originally Posted by left of center
^ I also have a feeling that while he is fine putting his money where his mouth is, it would be only for a stadium that he would own outright. Otherwise, he would still be a tenant in Soldier Field without full control over the usage of the site (such as creating an entertainment district), which is one of the main gripes the Bears currently have.
Messy business, these stadiums  |
Yeah I get it, but I also don't think the city can support this many stadium-anchored entertainment districts. Time to be realistic. We have Wrigleyville already and the 1901 Project at the UC will likely move forward before anything else (mainly bc they already have all the streets and infrastructure they need). That kinda sucks out the oxygen to do another such district around the Sox, Bears or Fire stadiums. These districts tend to have a certain vibe (bro-ish, formulaic/fake) and they're not for everyone.
Personally I don't have a problem with the Soldier Field idea of a stadium in a park. That's a perfectly fine way for a stadium to exist in a city, we don't need to cram mixed-use everywhere.
Threaded Mode