CHICAGO | Da Bears | New Domed Lakefront Stadium Proposal

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by BrinChi

Financing aside, I'm not understanding how a new stadium build on the lakefront is legally even possible, given the lakefront ordinance. Is it because the new stadium would still be publicly owned?

Yea, I have serious doubts about the lakefront idea. If the Lucas saga is anything to go by, I don't see how or even why the Bears would want to get involved with the red tape and delays, even if they somehow manged to win via courts eventually.

Granted, this is speculation, but I think the Bears may have felt overwhelmed by the size of the AH racetrack parcel. They may realize that they bit off way more than they could chew regarding development size and tax issues etc.

Still, I thought the Bears at least wanted to own the stadium/land they built a stadium on. I would think trading ownership rights would be much more difficult (even if able to get permits to build on the lakefront) or impossible with the lakefront parcel.

[Bonsai Tree]

How would this even work too? I don't think the park lots are nearly large enough to hold a domed stadium. They'd have to acquire parkland outside the lots or deck over part of LSD (my preferred option of course).

[oakesd88]

Originally Posted by Ahoi

The only thing I say is:
Redevelop the old Soldier Field and build One Central in the back.

Or build the new stadium (soccer stadium) as planned a few years ago on the Lincoln Yards site.

Well, your suggestion certainly works for me. That's always been the plan making the most sense.

[jpIllInoIs]

Seems like the Bears have lost a great deal of leverage. I cant see the Lakefront site going through and personally abhor the One Central plan as too grandiose and dependent on massive public welfare to the 1% class. But just to white board a list it is included. Looking for more sites to accommodate Domed stadium.

Potential Domed stadium sites

Lakefront SF south parking lots
McMk marshalling yards deck
Comiskey Park lots (after Sox move to 78)
United Center lots
Revival of One Central
NW Indiana
Suburbs w/o initials AH
Bears owned AH

[twister244]

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs

Seems like the Bears have lost a great deal of leverage. I cant see the Lakefront site going through and personally abhor the One Central plan as too grandiose and dependent on massive public welfare to the 1% class. But just to white board a list it is included. Looking for more sites to accommodate Domed stadium.

Potential Domed stadium sites

Lakefront SF south parking lots
McMk marshalling yards deck
Comiskey Park lots (after Sox move to 78)
United Center lots
Revival of One Central
NW Indiana
Suburbs w/o initials AH
Bears owned AH

I still am putting my Dark Horse prediction of Lincoln Yards as a potential site. Given how bad the office market is, a pivot to something like what 78 is trying to do seems completely plausible. Especially given the location with respect to Metra (Clybourn), the Kennedy, and it's not horribly far from Brown/Red lines.

[cyked3]

You all are WAY overstating the risk that Friends of the Park will be able to derail a new lakefront stadium by invoking the public trust doctrine.

So long as the new stadium is publicly owned, multipurpose, made available to multiple users, provides a clear public benefit, and the Bears’ contract to use the facility is properly structured - I see almost no risk. How do I know this?

I know because FOTP already tried (and failed) to stop a lakefront development for the Bears, in 2003. The Illinois Supreme Court threw out their case. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/il...t/1085688.html You can read the decision for yourself. There is no reason the same analysis wouldn’t apply to a replacement stadium next to Soldier Field versus renovating Soldier Field itself, as the Park District did previously..

Before anyone says “but since the 2003 decision, another court rejected the Lucas Museum based on public trust doctrine, so the doctrine must be stronger now” — yes it is true the Lucas Museum was rejected, but no the public trust doctrine hasn’t changed. The Lucas deal and corresponding court decision would be easily distinguishable by the Bears, again so long as a new stadium deal is properly structured. The museum deal was VERY different from the 2003 Bears deal — it was a 99 year lease of public trust land providing a private entity EXCLUSIVE control over the land for the entire 99 year period. You can see for yourself in the 2003 court decision how the 2003 Bears deal for Soldier Field was very different.

Before anyone says “but the Bears hate the economics and lack of control in the current deal, so they’ll never agree to a similar arrangement” — yes that’s true the Bears reportedly hate the current deal, but I am very confident a properly structured facility use agreement can be designed to solve for the Bears’ concerns while simultaneously ensuring that the deal still passes muster under the public trust doctrine. The Bears now know what they need from a publicly facility deal; they can solve for their concerns in an updated use agreement. The key for public trust doctrine analysis is whether the new stadium would be publicly owned, multipurpose, made available to multiple users, and provide a clear public benefit. The Bears can check all those boxes while at the same time increasing their revenue opportunities and ability to dictate operations at the stadium on game days. Also, don’t forget, public ownership means no property taxes. That itself is a huge benefit.

And yes, I am a lawyer — a former litigator and now transactional lawyer.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by cyked3

Before anyone says “but the Bears hate the economics and lack of control in the current deal, so they’ll never agree to a similar arrangement” — yes that’s true the Bears reportedly hate the current deal, but I am very confident a properly structured facility use agreement can be designed to solve for the Bears’ concerns while simultaneously ensuring that the deal still passes muster under the public trust doctrine. The Bears now know what they need from a publicly facility deal; they can solve for their concerns in an updated use agreement. The key for public trust doctrine analysis is whether the new stadium would be publicly owned, multipurpose, made available to multiple users, and provide a clear public benefit. The Bears can check all those boxes while at the same time increasing their revenue opportunities and ability to dictate operations at the stadium on game days. Also, don’t forget, public ownership means no property taxes. That itself is a huge benefit.

And yes, I am a lawyer — a former litigator and now transactional lawyer.

Yes, a publicly owned and managed stadium is clearly legal

Though of course the real risk of course is to taxpayers’ pocketbooks since I highly doubt the generosity of the Bears donating a free stadium to the city.

[lakeshoredrive]

I kind of like Kam Buckner’s take on this issue:

https://www.aol.com/news/bears-focus...FwLDtQzELfKOd4

[le_brew]

Isn’t part of the problem with SF location is that it isn’t compatible with an entertainment district; which the Bears franchise wants ? How would the parking lot south of SF resolve this? There is no room for expansion. These folks seem to trade one foolish idea for another.

[Bonsai Tree]

I have a feeling One Central is a part of this

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by le_brew

Isn’t part of the problem with SF location is that it isn’t compatible with an entertainment district; which the Bears franchise wants ? How would the parking lot south of SF resolve this? There is no room for expansion. These folks seem to trade one foolish idea for another.

The Bears want the public to pay for a new stadium before they sell.

The entertainment district is just the bait and switch of the proposal.

Always has been.

[bhawk66]

The so called "entertainment district" being seen as attached to a new stadium might be more of an assumption by us skyscraper nerds. Baseball has 81 home games, hockey and basketball some 41 home games. Football, 8.

Not sure how overly concerned the Bears are about an entertainment district. They want a dome with a lot more seats than SF, I would figure.

You look at most NFL stadiums they are an island to themselves. AT&T Stadium in Arlington Texas (Cowboys) as an example.

Entertainment districts next to stadiums are best served for baseball, basketball and hockey

[bnk]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

The Bears want the public to pay for a new stadium before they sell.

The entertainment district is just the bait and switch of the proposal.

Always has been.

The bears never asked for public money in AH


Just not to have their thumb screws turned

Hundreds of million dollars per every year is typical of Chicago and Cook county, more in taxes than Churchill downs

Why everyone thinks the bears do not want to outright own their own stadium cannot see the potential income to the bears


But paying every single year 100 million plus more every single year makes less sense the more one looks into it

As far as I know

warren didn’t need NM state taxes to get his own independent dome in the twin cities


If I’m wrong
I’d like a link


The Cook county assessor is playing hardball to keep it in the city

And btw


AH is still in cook county so they as having the ability to be tax mongers have little recourse here.

If the school district was smart cut a deal and beg Cook county reprive

Otherwise it’s just feral land that the Bears will just sell cheap even at a loss to avoid paying taxes on a huge weed field after the concourse is finished being demolished to dust


I blame 3-4 parties here!!!


And is no way one party in this fubar innocent, quite the opposite

Most all involved are ugly messes, and I don’t see a simple solution. AH school district is also highly ranked
What else do they plan with $ 160,000,000.00 millions of more dollars a year?

Do they plan to double dip pensions and give retired and dead teachers millions more every year?
Because most likely in general the kids won’t benefit more than they already are

If I was the bears I’d turn it into a open pit mine or a toxic landfill
Just to fuck with those greedy AH asshats
So long as they don’t lose any money im the courts doing so


This could take many years if ever to fix this situation

And it pains me as a bears fan of course and our dysfunctional relationship between even the inner burbs with metra and the pure nastiness and greed of Chicago

In the proper situation

AH wouldn’t be in Cook county

That extra northwest grab from the county came from somewhere and at the expense of lake county and McHenry county

At least DuPage was smart enough to escape the largest in population and also the largest in land area a while back
And if I recall
I think Will county was also part of cook county and all of lake county Illinois at one point !

Any Illinois historians out there that would like to expound on this topic?


The only thing everyone should agree upon it should be a 24-7 365 day facility that benefits the entire Chicagoland

So saying that someplace close and domed near the ufo or on the marshaling air rights seem most benificial
Economically if done right

But when have the bears and the city ever done anything right when it comes to major stadiums?

[ardecila]

Yes, the south lot is probably not large enough for a big domed stadium. It is pinched between LSD and Burnham Harbor. If the Bears are fine with a reduced footprint, then they should just renovate Soldier Field rather than trying to build new - the small footprint is the only downside to SF, the South Lot site is worse in pretty much every other metric.

If renovating SF is off the table for whatever reason, they will probably need to look at tearing down Lakeside Center, or at the marshalling yards. Even the Marshalling Yards are squeezed between the Metra tracks and LSD. Which gets at the heart of the issue - a modern NFL dome is such a colossal structure, there aren't many sites in the city big enough to fit it AND have most of the infrastructure in place to get people in/out for games and events.

[Klippenstein]

Originally Posted by bnk

What else do they plan with $ 160,000,000.00 millions of more dollars a year?

I didn't read your whole post, but the $160 million is the assessment of the value of the piece of property, not the amount of taxes that they would pay every year.

[Busy Bee]

Maybe Taylor Swift will announce the plans at the end of the Super Bowl?

[bhawk66]

.

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Even the Marshalling Yards are squeezed between the Metra tracks and LSD..

You mean south of McCormick Place? I never imagined they would try to squeeze it in that space. I always assumed that if built there, you build the stadium orienting east-west above grade over the tracks and the Marshalling yards. Underneath the football plaza around the stadium, you could also have a ton of underground parking.

The stadium would also essentially use the same 55 and LSD ramps that McCormick Place uses. The only major issue I see with that parcel is that an Advocate outpatient care center is there, but I think the Bears/city could help rebuild that nearby for 30-50 million dollars.

A nice pedestrian bridge could also be built over LSD from the stadium plaza to the lakefront with gigantic sliding windows (like the Vikings, Colts, Cardinals, and Rams have) on the east side of the stadium that looks out onto the lake so that on nice days you could get direct lake breezes.

You could also directly connect it to McCormick and officially make it part of the complex and perhaps some McCormick funding streams. Once you involve McCormick, place, it may complicate the political/financing formula more than it would help, though.

[observation deck]

delete

[jbermingham123]

Originally Posted by busy bee

maybe taylor swift will announce the plans at the end of the super bowl?

HaHaHaHaHa