CHICAGO | General Discussions

[Bonsai Tree]

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs

With the money behind the Bears bid for Arlington including Bet rivers casino, Neil Blum real estate and the Halas McCaskey family, and the shear acreage of the real estate involved it is safe to assume the Bears envision a new mega stadium ala, SoFi home of the Rams & Chargers. It will include casino amenities, hotels and other entertainment as well as massive parking. Let Arlington have that.. good and bad.

Chicago can still gain plenty, including increased NCAA football, Concerts and the like. Also the new stadium will be immediately eligible for a Super Bowl and will develop some sort of College bowl game. The major events will draw visitors that will not be content with hanging out in AH for the week. In fact it is likely that networks will plant a few cameras out there for Stadium background shots and then produce alot of content in the city.

As for Soldier Field, the city can target unique NCaa games like an annual rivalry matchup with the HBC (historically black colleges). Call it the Walter Payton Bowl (Jackson State). And bring in an annual Army, Navy or Air Force match up as the home team against a regional foe like Western Michigan or Iowa State. Also an annual Northwestern game, U of I game, Northern ILL. game. Just being realistic that Notre Dame will never give up a home date in an 80000+ stadium for 62000 Soldier Field game.

Why not do an annual double header with small college matchups. EIU v. WIU in the afternoon, and SIU v ISU in the evening. Call it a Chicago homecoming weekend. All the state schools are on Amtrak lines so travel options can be included in ticket and hotel pricing.

The Fire are at SF but they are not drawing well mainly due to a poor record, hopefully that will change. It is still possible to get Concacaf and friendly international matchups at SF. Soldier Field and Chicago will live on.

None of that is worth the money that taxpayers are probably going to have to pony up for a new stadium. There are 0 benefits of a new stadium other than making the Bears richer. Everyone talks about how great a super-bowl is for a city, but it's a one-off event every few decades. Completely pointless to make that a part of an argument. I wholeheartedly disagree with your position here. Even with all of your great programming changes, you've maybe increased a few extra events a year for the Chicagoland region? At most?

[tjp]

If they do ever win a Super Bowl, they don't get a downtown parade. They can march around the Woodfield Mall parking lot or whatever.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by sentinel

The Bears have been a shitty team for the past 30+ years. Let them go, get another franchise come here..and yes, Chicago/Chicagoland is massive enough to have two unique football franchises.

Agreed.

My biggest beef with Arlington Heights is that it completely screws the south/southeast portion of Chicagoland.

[jpIllInoIs]

Originally Posted by Bonsai Tree

None of that is worth the money that taxpayers are probably going to have to pony up for a new stadium. There are 0 benefits of a new stadium other than making the Bears richer. Everyone talks about how great a super-bowl is for a city, but it's a one-off event every few decades. Completely pointless to make that a part of an argument. I wholeheartedly disagree with your position here. Even with all of your great programming changes, you've maybe incrhome games per year.eased a few extra events a year for the Chicagoland region? At most?

Nowhere did I say that I would be for any public subsidy. I would not support any public money for any stadium, Chicago or Arlington Hts. My point is the opposite: Chicago should not panic over the departure of 10 NFL games. And Chicago will still benefit from Major events like a Super Bowl in Arlington Hts.

ZERO PUBLIC SUBSIDIES FOR PROFESSIONAL SPORTS TEAMS!

[Bonsai Tree]

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs

Nowhere did I say that I would be for any public subsidy. I would not support any public money for any stadium, Chicago or Arlington Hts. My point is the opposite: Chicago should not panic over the departure of 10 NFL games. And Chicago will still benefit from Major events like a Super Bowl in Arlington Hts.

ZERO PUBLIC SUBSIDIES FOR PROFESSIONAL SPORTS TEAMS!

Yes! Guess there was a miscommunication there.

[skysoar]

Originally Posted by sentinel

The Bears have been a shitty team for the past 30+ years. Let them go, get another franchise come here..and yes, Chicago/Chicagoland is massive enough to have two unique football franchises.

I agree, if i were the Mayor i would be developing a back-up plan, beginning with speaking with the L.A Chargers right now. The Chargers share a stadium with the Rams presently where they are more tolerated than appreciated. They also have a very small fanbase in L,A. If the Chargers were to move to Chicago they would have their own stadium, an opportunity to increase their revenue, and grow a good fanbase, and though they are in the A.F.C West, logistically it would not be bad as they are already in a division with Denver, Kansas City, and Las Vegas, all cities not too distant flightwise from Chicago. Also they would need no re-alignment being in the A.F.C as the Bears are in the N.F.C.

[left of center]

Originally Posted by sentinel

The Bears have been a shitty team for the past 30+ years. Let them go, get another franchise come here..and yes, Chicago/Chicagoland is massive enough to have two unique football franchises.

Chicagoland can definitely support 2 teams, the only problem is the Bears can veto any new team expansion, and you better believe they will. They do not want to lose any market share to some new upstart team.

Originally Posted by tjp

If they do ever win a Super Bowl, they don't get a downtown parade. They can march around the Woodfield Mall parking lot or whatever.

I wholeheartedly agree. If the Bears move to AH, and they win the Super Bowl and contact the city about doing a parade, the city should simply reply "we don't have an NFL team here, wrong number" and hang up.

This is, again, assuming that the Bears actually move. I have a feeling the decision isn't as easy as it appears. There will be damn close to zero public funds going to this new stadium. The state definitely isn't going to give them anything, and neither is Cook County since SF is already within county limits. AH might be able to offer them something, but its going to be a drop in the bucket.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

One has to wonder if the Bears had been based out of Arlington Heights, whether the Lucas Museum would not have encountered so much opposition from Friends of the Parking Lot. After all, no issues with tailgating or parking any more

LOL this was one of my first thoughts. To be fair though, their main argument was that parking lots give access to people to come to parks. I doubt it would have really changed much but they were shortsighted anyway.

[the urban politician]

I actually think that if Lightfoot holds the line on giveaways to the Bears, hence allowing them to move to the burbs without too much of a fuss, that’s a good sign for Chicago.

That would mean that unlike most cities in the country, Chicago has crossed a threshold that it doesn’t need to fight hard to keep a sports franchise in the city. It has enough momentum going for it that it can live without the Bears.

I know that this is an annoying cliche, but ask yourself, “What would New York do?” New York would probably say, in a similar situation, “We’d love to have you here but, whatever. Enjoy the suburbs…”

[Steely Dan]

^ and of America's "big urban 7" (NYC, LA, CHI, PHL, BOS, SF, & DC) only Chicago and Philly currently have NFL stadiums within the municipal borders of the central city. The other 5 are all in the burbs (and Philly's is in a pretty out-of-the-way corner of the city, in a giant and somewhat isolated sports stadium complex).

As I alluded to earlier in this thread, urbanism and giant rarely-used NFL stadiums don't really go hand in hand.

[the urban politician]

The bigger question is, what will happen to Soldier Field?

How will the cost of its maintenance be supported?

Sure you can have big concerts, etc but ultimately not having the Bears is a tremendous financial loss.

[sentinel]

^^Does the City have any type of legal recourse/sue the Bears org for breach of contract, especially if there was some sort of early termination clause?

As much as this is a shitty situation, it's also a potential once in a lifetime opportunity to get another sports organization in there...how, who, when is the million dollar question...

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

The bigger question is, what will happen to Soldier Field?

if the stadium can be reconfigured to better serve the Fire as their permanent "forever home", then that's 17 home games/year + playoffs (yeah right, ) right there.

throw in a college football game or two, an international soccer friendly, concerts, other random events, and maybe you can get up to 25-30 days of use/year.

but making the stadium more MLS-friendly (ie. reducing capacity) may hurt its ability to host some of those other events, but there's LOTS of time to figure all of that out. the bears are still going to be at SF for several more years to come, at the very least.

[skysoar]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I actually think that if Lightfoot holds the line on giveaways to the Bears, hence allowing them to move to the burbs without too much of a fuss, that’s a good sign for Chicago.

That would mean that unlike most cities in the country, Chicago has crossed a threshold that it doesn’t need to fight hard to keep a sports franchise in the city. It has enough momentum going for it that it can live without the Bears.

I know that this is an annoying cliche, but ask yourself, “What would New York do?” New York would probably say, in a similar situation, “We’d love to have you here but, whatever. Enjoy the suburbs…”

Yes it probably would mean that she has some other franchise in mind, as is reportedly being hinted by Crains. With Chicago having a storied N.F.L history, and a proven market that has produced a rabid N.F.L fanbase, add to that a stadium located on a lakefront close to an iconic downtown skyline that may also become a part of a huge new development { One Central }, she has a lot to work with. I would not doubt that her Plan B is a lot further thought out than we know. Sure the Bears ownership would fight it like the Redskins fought against the Ravens entering the Washington market, but in the end money convinced the other owners to except it. It will be very interesting to see how this will all play out.

[Steely Dan]

if the bears do end up leaving SF, regardless of where they might end up out in the sprawl, they'll never have anything like this again:


source: wikiepdia

[the urban politician]

^ That spectacular view is consolation for the fans who have to sit in the freezing cold watching such a shitty team.

[sentinel]

It just boggles my mind that no one, at the City, the Bears org, the development team, the Park District, etc., ever thought to fully enclose the stadium, knowing full well how cold games in the winter would be (hell, even something like the Vikings did, with large operable partitions that open in the summer time).

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ That spectacular view is consolation for the fans who have to sit in the freezing cold watching such a shitty team.

i've certainly done my fair share of freezing my nuts off at SF, when your beer turns into a slurpee.....



still though, it puts some hair on your chest.

we're chicagoans; we're supposed to be tough.

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by sentinel

It just boggles my mind that no one, at the City, the Bears org, the development team, the Park District, etc., ever thought to fully enclose the stadium, knowing full well how cold games in the winter would be (hell, even something like the Vikings did, with large operable partitions that open in the summer time).

They did. The city/state had it in a proposal. It was even called McDome", but one entity demanded and open-air, grass field. That entity was.....wait for it...the Bears!

[left of center]

Originally Posted by moorhosj1

They did. The city/state had it in a proposal. It was even called McDome", but one entity demanded and open-air, grass field. That entity was.....wait for it...the Bears!

So stupid and shortsighted....