CHICAGO | Da Bears | Now these shitheads wanna drive their clown car over to Indiana?

[chi_raven]

I like that spot, but it should definitely include an infill Green Line stop between Cermak and 35th (currently a 1.5 mile gap).

[Randomguy34]

Originally Posted by MorganChi

Updated news

https://x.com/crainschicago/status/1856304524362654104?s=46&t=aLd1UDJTAjedKwCw3hkwEA

[sentinel]

Honestly, it makes more sense to me for a Bears stadium at the Michael Reese site, and converting SF to a new Sox park, or an expanded Fire stadium.

[MorganChi]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

🤣😂🤣😂

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by twister244

Yawn..... I feel like we get a bump on a location consideration every so often with no actual teeth to any of the news.

True, but I feel that this location makes a lot more sense than the previous two. The lakefront was never going to fly given the expense and landmark obstructions. For whatever reason I think the size, logistics, and ownership of the AH location scared the Bears off. Their numbers must tell them that "leasing" from the city/state would be cheaper than owning and buying the stadium in AH. Perhaps they figure they can also get substantial city money and support, whereas AH is too small fry to put significant skin in the game?

My larger question is where on the MR site would this go, more towards the site's north or south end? Would it go over the truck yards and IC tracks at all? Either which would considerably tick up the cost of the project.

[Via Chicago]

the bears are a seriously diseased organization

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

My larger question is where on the MR site would this go, more towards the site's north or south end? Would it go over the truck yards and IC tracks at all? Either which would considerably tick up the cost of the project.

From the Crain's story:

The Michael Reese developers previously drafted plans to build a massive deck and land bridge over a truck-marshaling yard that serves the convention center, South DuSable Lake Shore Drive and Metra tracks to better connect the site to Lake Michigan and make the site more attractive to the Bears.

While the plan created new park space and left the southern portion of the site open for a mixed-use campus, the Bears have previously said the NFL expressed security concerns over an active rail line running under the stadium.

“Primarily from a safety and security issue — building a stadium on a platform above an active railway is, we’ve been told, (an) issue from a construction, design and operation standpoint,” Warren told Crain’s editorial board in April.

The team said at the time it had measured several other NFL stadiums against the site and found none of them would fit.

The development team has overhauled those plans after feedback from the Bears. The land bridge, which would cost billions of dollars and may need federal assistance, is no longer needed with the stadium shifting to the southern end of the development along 31st Street, according to sources familiar with the plans.

[Chisouthside]

You can almost fit the physical footprint of Allegiant stadium in the area bounded by 29th streen and 31st street north to south and vernon and the metra tracks from east to west. .

And given their dimensions, you can easily fit something like a levy stadium or us bank field in that same area.

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

From the Crain's story:..."While the plan created new park space and left the southern portion of the site open for a mixed-use campus, the Bears have previously said the NFL expressed security concerns over an active rail line running under the stadium.

“Primarily from a safety and security issue — building a stadium on a platform above an active railway is, we’ve been told, (an) issue from a construction, design, and operation standpoint,” Warren told Crain’s editorial board in April...."

Interesting.

I did NFL stadium size comps on Google and it looks like there is more than enough room for a stadium at the north end of the site (where the current Advocate and McDonalds are) without a footprint that would have to go directly over the train tracks.

I don't want to go far into speculation and conspiracy, but I find the pretext that the NFL had some well-vetted concerns about trains and security as likely bogus. Security concerns were used only as a pat reply when addressing why they discounted the MR site during their SF plan rollout. Unless there was/is some government official or expert who would confirm security concerns as an issue I would put little stock in the reasoning.

The landbridge and deck would undoubtedly increase the cost and complexity, but billions of dollars? Again, not believable. I could imagine a few hundred million, but not billions.

Be it the north or south side of MR, it is my preference compared to AH or the SF site, so maybe the Bears will indeed go with the less costly and more straightforward south end of the MR site.

[Bonsai Tree]

If they go on the southern end of the site wouldn't that mean they would almost certainly demolish the Singer Building? Would be kinda sad to lose that

[Halsted & Villagio]

Looks like Michael Reese might have some legs after all.

https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/bears-new-stadium-michael-reese-site

[Randomguy34]

What a wild news cycle. Dorval Carter resigned from the CTA, demolition of 311 S Wacker is listed as an option, a coyote was hiding in an Aldi's, and now the state might fund the Bears move to Michael Reese

[MorganChi]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

What a wild news cycle. Dorval Carter resigned from the CTA, demolition of 311 S Wacker is listed as an option, a coyote was hiding in an Aldi's, and now the state might fund the Bears move to Michael Reese

Welcome to 2025

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

What a wild news cycle. Dorval Carter resigned from the CTA, demolition of 311 S Wacker is listed as an option, a coyote was hiding in an Aldi's, and now the state might fund the Bears move to Michael Reese

Ok, if the state is gonna fund anything, even if primarily infrastructure-related, then they better make the deal work for the state, including an ownership percentage of the new facility..and I don’t mean 2-4%, I mean 25-35%. Otherwise, the team can — right off into oblivion.

[Danillo]

If I weren't already skeptical of public funding towards stadiums, the recent situation between Philadelphia and the 76ers would make me very suspect of even negotiating with teams. The city can state could put in years of work and put their necks on the line to try to get a deal that works for the team and the state, only to find out that it was just leverage all along to get better terms in Arlington. I do not trust sports teams, at all.

[Halsted & Villagio]

Originally Posted by Danillo

If I weren't already skeptical of public funding towards stadiums, the recent situation between Philadelphia and the 76ers would make me very suspect of even negotiating with teams. The city can state could put in years of work and put their necks on the line to try to get a deal that works for the team and the state, only to find out that it was just leverage all along to get better terms in Arlington. I do not trust sports teams, at all.

I get it but what's the alternative? Not negotiating at all? There is definitely a benefit to that whole area that badly needs investment if this thing comes to fruition; moreover, there is certainly a benefit to be had to the city is the deal is structured right. It would be a dereliction of their duty if they fail to engage in negotiations.

Moreover, a lot of this stuff can be locked down by contract before engaging an meaningful negotiations... "good faith" clauses and their ilk quickly come to mind and contract law is not even my specialty. Philly may have failed to do that but that does not mean that Chicago will overlook the basics of negotiating with snake oil salesmen - the Bears. I can personally attest from first hand experience, having gone against them via the discovery process/settlement and from fighting against them in court a few times, that for all the notable flaws our Mayor has, the lawyers working for the city are solid. Not perfect but solid. They wont miss this issue.

[Randomguy34]

^ I think it's "better" that the state is only focusing on infrastructure improvements, which will benefit the entire community, rather than the stadium itself. That said, I agree with sentinel that the state should not do this for free and negotiate for partial ownership of the new stadium. Farpoint was supposed to pick up the costs of infrastructure for Bronzeville Lakefront, so the fact the state would now pick up the tab isn't fair without some serious concessions.

[Danillo]

Originally Posted by Halsted & Villagio

I get it but what's the alternative? It would be a dereliction of their duty if they fail to engage in negotiations.

You're right. I overstated. I'll say that cities and states should have their guard up as much as possible in dealing with teams.

[twister244]

Not sure if there's news here on the numbers front - I have forgotten the exact breakdown of costs.

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/politics...ampaign=Newsletter-BreakingNews-20250204

Under the Bears plan, taxpayers, through bonds issued by the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority, would pay for $900 million in upfront costs toward the stadium. The total cost of the project includes an additional $1.5 billion in infrastructure costs the team is also hoping will be subsidized by local, state or federal funding.

Of the infrastructure improvements, the team wants $325 million in upfront funding to support the stadium. An additional $1.2 billion would be included in subsequent phases. The second phase calls for $510 million for new parking and multi-use playfields at the demolished Soldier Field. The third phase would include $665 million in future transportation improvements to make the Museum Campus more accessible.

[left of center]

No. Zero money for billionaire-owned sports franchises. We are still paying off the mutilation of SF which cost us the National Historic Landmark designation in 2002.

Mayor Brandon Johnson continues to advocate for a new Chicago Bears lakefront stadium, urging state legislators to get on board with a plan that calls for $2.4 billion in public subsidies.

...

Johnson continued to make the case by downplaying the subsidies involved and arguing infrastructure improvements are needed on Chicago's lakefront whether or not the Bears land their desired domed stadium just south of their current Soldier Field home.

This guy really wants to drive Chicago financial ruin, huh?