CHICAGO | Da Bears | New Domed Lakefront Stadium Proposal

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

If the South Lot is assumed to be the parcel where the new stadium would go, the removal of that South Lot would remove a large section of parking near the would-be stadium. You would still have many parking spaces at the lots to the north and McCormick, but much of your prime tailgating would not be nearby.

That parcel is also an extremely tight squeeze for a stadium (there are approximately 600 feet of width to play with at the South Lot parcel. No other NFL stadium is anywhere near narrow, as far as I am aware). Then there is all this rubbish talk about somehow converting part of Soldier or adjacent space to be included as part of lakefront parkland. How that would effectively work is beyond me. It sounds like a very expensive shape-shifting plan, all because the Bears are now intent, yet again, to play ON the lakefront.

If that insistence inflates the cost to please everyone, the city/state should say hell no (provided they would say yes to any location).

I agree the dimensions of the South Lot site are challenging unless they somehow move Burnham Harbor to expand the shoreline, or build the stands over LSD/Special Olympics Drive in a way that is ugly and not befitting of the lakefront.

However, I think by re-committing to the lakefront, the Bears are admitting they can't give tailgaters everything they want. One of the ideas in the Museum Campus Study a few years ago was to build a special plaza for tailgating without the cars, kinda like the Grove at Ole Miss. Soldier Field itself would likely go back to being a local-purpose stadium, the Fire could play there or it could be used for youth and adult league sports. Depending on the use, they could possibly build 2-3 levels of parking within the SF colonnade under the new playing fields to replace the lost parking at the South Lot.

I guess we'll see what the Bears propose, maybe later this week.

My big question is: if the Bears can bring $2B of private funding to the table, why the hell are they giving up on Arlington Heights, where everything is easier and cheaper including permits/approvals, construction, and mixed-use development.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by twister244

https://wgntv.com/news/chicago-news/...soldier-field/

So...... This to me sounds like the Bears are becoming pretty committed to staying at their current location, while maintaining the existing historic Soldier Field external infrastructure.

A domed stadium is what should have been built 20+ years ago, but glad that this is a potential reality in the future.

[DCReid]

This release certainly says so...

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/chicago...162604505.html

[jpIllInoIs]

Crazy thought. Lakefront Center rebuild. Same idea as the old Casino proposals. If the center needs so much work to reno the facility, why not pace the dome there and direct connect to the McCormik complex with access to all the parking decks, hotels, transit and be usable by conventions?

[BrickellBased]

Loop Bally's into it and build the casino by the stadium and McCormick center where it should actually be especially with legalization of sports betting.

Find some synergistic cost savings for some of the construction costs.

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs

Crazy thought. Lakefront Center rebuild. Same idea as the old Casino proposals. If the center needs so much work to reno the facility, why not pace the dome there and direct connect to the McCormik complex with access to all the parking decks, hotels, transit and be usable by conventions?

[JMBasquiat]

Why not a strip club on the lakefront while you're at it?

[bnk]

AH got greedy and is regretting it.


https://twitter.com/Schrock_And_Awe/...tadium-project

[brian_b]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Wondering if Bob Dunn has his fingers in this at all and if this potential domed stadium could revive the One Central proposal.

In the 1890s, the US Supreme Court ruled that Illinois Central never, at any time, had absolute fee simple title to the land.

The old recorder of deeds website used to let you look at the document scans for free; I can't figure out how to do that anymore (maybe only in person now???). Anyway, a lot of the parcels that Dunn assembled came to him as quitclaim deeds with a chain of title derived from the original Illinois Central ownership, which you can verify by looking at those scans.

What exactly Dunn owns is unclear (to me, at least). Whatever he doesn't own is owned by the state, the city, and/or McPier. Publicly-owned, public-benefiting structures are almost certainly something that Dunn doesn't get a piece of.

In all likelihood, he got taken for a ride.

[Toasty Joe]

Originally Posted by brian_b

In all likelihood, he got taken for a ride.

Maybe, but the Bears seem committed to that area and (finally) the current trend is creating/enhancing a mixed-use neighborhood around a pro sports team's stadium/arena. Assuming Dunn did his homework, even a scaled down One Central may end up fairly lucrative.

[Klippenstein]

Well, he might just take the rest of us with him on that ride because I don't think any government entity is going to challenge his claim unless it impedes with some public use. From what I've read, there is a desire for him to spend his or whoever's money he can get his hands on to develop that air space.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by brian_b

In the 1890s, the US Supreme Court ruled that Illinois Central never, at any time, had absolute fee simple title to the land.

The old recorder of deeds website used to let you look at the document scans for free; I can't figure out how to do that anymore (maybe only in person now???). Anyway, a lot of the parcels that Dunn assembled came to him as quitclaim deeds with a chain of title derived from the original Illinois Central ownership, which you can verify by looking at those scans.

What exactly Dunn owns is unclear (to me, at least). Whatever he doesn't own is owned by the state, the city, and/or McPier. Publicly-owned, public-benefiting structures are almost certainly something that Dunn doesn't get a piece of.

In all likelihood, he got taken for a ride.

Remember that all of Illinois Center and Lakeshore East was built on the same legal foundation, and probably had the same lawyers drafting those quitclaim deeds for the IC.

I don't think Bob Dunn's claim on the air rights is any more dubious than those of the Prudential Building or the Hyatt Regency. Dunn's problem is that it doesn't actually pencil to build a giant deck over the rail tracks in South Loop, and it never has. That's why he tried to claim his shopping mall / luxury residential development was really, in fact, a massive transit center that the state should shower money on.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by brian_b

In the 1890s, the US Supreme Court ruled that Illinois Central never, at any time, had absolute fee simple title to the land.

The old recorder of deeds website used to let you look at the document scans for free; I can't figure out how to do that anymore (maybe only in person now???). Anyway, a lot of the parcels that Dunn assembled came to him as quitclaim deeds with a chain of title derived from the original Illinois Central ownership, which you can verify by looking at those scans.

What exactly Dunn owns is unclear (to me, at least). Whatever he doesn't own is owned by the state, the city, and/or McPier. Publicly-owned, public-benefiting structures are almost certainly something that Dunn doesn't get a piece of.

In all likelihood, he got taken for a ride.

To clarify the matter. The voided Illinois Central parcels were the submerged parcels. The land parcels in the 1892 decision still belonged to Illinois Central, and air rights are valid up to about 12th St.

A Title Company would have determined whether the air rights were appropriate over a hundred years ago, so no reason to think that Dunn’s property titles are false.

Cook county document scans are still free on the Cook recorder site for the years they have available.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Remember that all of Illinois Center and Lakeshore East was built on the same legal foundation, and probably had the same lawyers drafting those quitclaim deeds for the IC.

I don't think Bob Dunn's claim on the air rights is any more dubious than those of the Prudential Building or the Hyatt Regency.

The deeds are fine if the tracks were on land at the time of the court decision which all of the concerned properties were. The decision protects the submerged lakeshore.

[Randomguy34]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Dunn's problem is that it doesn't actually pencil to build a giant deck over the rail tracks in South Loop, and it never has. That's why he tried to claim his shopping mall / luxury residential development was really, in fact, a massive transit center that the state should shower money on.

Shouldn't it be cheaper and easier to slightly bury the Metra tracks and yard? MED's vertical clearance is 26 feet. They obviously can't be buried too deep, which would prevent access to the platforms at 11th St and McCormick Place. With a 1% grade in elevation, it should be possible to bury trains just enough so that there doesn't need to be a giant ass deck over the tracks.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

Shouldn't it be cheaper and easier to slightly bury the Metra tracks and yard? MED's vertical clearance is 26 feet. They obviously can't be buried too deep, which would prevent access to the platforms at 11th St and McCormick Place. With a 1% grade in elevation, it should be possible to bury trains just enough so that there doesn't need to be a giant ass deck over the tracks.

You'd still have to deck over the tracks whether they are at grade or depressed, so no, that's not a cheaper option. Plus you have the added challenge of hauling all that dirt away, and keeping your new trench dry in waterlogged soil near the lake.

Normally I'd be with you. Continuing the city at the same level over depressed tracks is preferable and way more seamless. But Lake Shore Drive is right there and is also at grade (roughly) so you'd still have a barrier to the lakefront. Building One Chicago elevated over the tracks allows for easy bridges over Lake Shore Drive to give lakefront access, and there is room at the west for gradual transitions down to neighborhood level inside of Mark Twain Park, Fort Dearborn Park, etc.

There's also the issue of parking... presumably any highrises will need a parking garage, and integrating those into a larger deck is a lot better than letting each building have its own, above-ground parking podium.

[Randomguy34]

I imagine a horizontal deck over depressed tracks would still be cheaper that a vertical+horizontal deck over at-grade tracks. I hoped to avoid a situation like Ikebukuro Station in Tokyo where tracks are at-grade, so there are no east-west streets for almost half-mile, and you're forced to use a crowded pedway to just walk from one side of town to another. But to your point, the situation here is even worse than Ikebukuro cause of LSD, so a massive deck probably is inevitable.

[BVictor1]

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/poli...overhaul-hotel

Bears stadium plans include $1B overhaul of Museum Campus — and a new lakefront hotel
By Justin Laurence

The public infrastructure investments needed to support a new lakefront stadium for the Chicago Bears would likely cost more than $1 billion.

The team has publicly committed $2 billion in private investment to make a domed stadium capable of providing 365-day programming a reality in Chicago. But the overall development would include an overhaul of the city’s Museum Campus and improvements to make the site more accessible from DuSable Lake Shore Drive and the city streets that sit on the other side of an expansive rail network.

Those costs would be over $1 billion and would be expected to be publicly subsidized, according to sources who’ve been briefed on the still-under-development plan.

Without revealing details of his frequent discussions with Bears president Kevin Warren, Johnson has hinted that he’s happy with the “public benefits” included in the plans

The bolder plan from the team would be a standalone hotel on the lakefront, although the team could drop the hotel if it receives significant pushback, according to sources involved in the conversations.

The most significant costs are related to access points to the Museum Campus from, or bypassing, DuSable Lake Shore Drive. Existing ramps would need to be expanded or moved based on the infrastructure needs of the new stadium.

A pedestrian bridge spanning Burnham Harbor to Northerly Island is also included in the plans. The overpass would have to be tall enough to accommodate the sailboats coming in and out of Lake Michigan.

[CaptainJilliams]

Release the renderings already lol

[psxvz]

Zero chance of a hotel and they have to know it.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by psxvz

Zero chance of a hotel and they have to know it.

Yep. Maybe they are putting that there as a starting point for negotiations to leverage to the outcome they desire.

When I first read $1 billion in public dollars, I got nervous until I read that it's going to be for lowering the NB LSD lanes of traffic, expanding entrance ramps, and building a ped bridge to Northerly Island. I actually think those are good ideas overall.

Honestly, this is a pretty solid plan from what I can see - The Bears aren't really asking for any money to build the stadium. If the city can't get those infrastructure upgrades, the Bears can still build a new stadium if they are willing to chalk the $2 billion up.

Further, I find it interesting that there is a desire to keep the old stadium as a parallel sporting venue. Obviously you can't just demolish it completely, but the article hints that it will still hold a solid purpose for sporting events. That could make for some interesting events down the road if Chicago ever wanted to go after the Olympics, or other world sporting events.

I agree - Let's see the renderings already.