Quote:
Originally Posted by 2PRUROCKS!
I'm not opposed to a new stadium going on the Michael Reese site but it currently has even worse access for a stadium than the present situation at Soldier Field and the Museum Campus. MR is further from downtown and any CTA rail stations and while near the IC tracks it doesn't have a station/stop like SF/MC already do.
|
It is true that MR is approximately one mile further south than Soldier Field from a given point in downtown. Let's be honest here, though 90% of fans will arrive at either new stadium site by car. Even when using PT, the proposed SF holds no distinct advantage. The Green Line @ Cermak to the McDoalnds on MLK (where the new stadium could go) is an 18-minute walk. The same Green Line stop to the Waldron Deck is a 27-minute walk. An IC stop could be easily integrated into the MR stadium complex mere steps away from the new stadium, while an even more expensive restructuring of the current dilapidated IC stop by at Waldron Deck is likely a part of the Bear's plans. So the IC factor and expense is a wash at best, but I'd give the potential advantage to an integrated IC station at MR.
Also the MCC busway could be fed directly into the stadium at MR so there is that major advantage.
Quote:
Rectifying that and building the road network and access ramps you describe I'm sure would cost well over 1 billion$.
|
Would it? Other than rebuilding the MR road footprint, which is planned anyway, I am not sure what else needs to be done for the MR site from a road logistics persepctive. The MCC truck yards/MR stadium would effectively use the same traffic patterns that MCC does now, using the 55 ramps and MLK. It would just have the slight advantage of relieving some of the traffic that inches from 55 to LSD northbound now on game days to SF.
Quote:
So by building a stadium at MR you would have to have a lot of additional infrastructure cost to bring it on par with what already currently exists at SF/MC.
|
You say what already exists, but the Bears are claiming that they want the city to pay out 1 billion dollars to improve the infrastructure around the SF/MC in order to improve traffic flow. So, in the Bear's estimation, it seems the SF/MC site is most definitely not ready and set. Also, many fans groan about how hard it is on game days to get in and out of SF/MC. I don't think it is that bad. I think people are just prone to whining and have failed to understand how hard it is to move 60k people in/out of venues. It seems that the Bears and fans think otherwise, however.
Quote:
The infrastructure improvements at SF/MC should improve the situation even more and benefit not just a stadium like a MR proposal would do but also improve access to the MC, McCormick Place, Northerly Island, and the Lake front.
|
Perhaps it is just a lack of imagination on my part, but I am failing to imagine how "access" could be easily upgraded that would make all that much difference in the Bears plans. Is 18th Street going to be built under/over the IC tracks to connect to the lakefront? Even if it were, that would seem to do little to integrate the city with the lakefront.
If the idea is to finish Northerly Island and green the South Lot, which isn't really improving traffic logistics, then that expense could be incurred without tearing down 95% of Soldier Field or moving bulldozers so that a new stadium could fit on an extremely tight footprint where the Waldron Deck sits now. Also, the amount of underground parking needed for a new lakefront stadium sounds very expensive and costly to upkeep. Are the Bears going to be coming back to the city in 25 years with the need to "maintain" their 10k underground parking garage (that can't even host tailgating) for 200 million along the lakefront infill? The napkin accounting says this idea is needlessly expensive.
Quote:
Kevin Warren has pushed back on the MR option saying it is too small...I believe he specifically said too narrow. I don't know if that is true or not but clearly the MR site has challenges.
|
As long as the city and Bears are willing to relocate the Advocate Clinic and McDonalds off of MLK, I have a hard time believing that the site is too small, especially if one is willing to build over the MCC yards and/or IC tracks. The site is definitely larger than the Waldron Deck/South Lot footprint. There is also open space along MLK and 26th to host retail, restraunts, bars, and a musuem if they desired.
I speculate that the Bears' insistence on the Lakefront has far more to do with them wanting to remain firmly on public land so that they can retain tax advantages or not have to pay to buy/rent the land from Fairpoint/GRIT development.