CHICAGO | General Developments

[Busy Bee]

That's why if they want to move the city should do their best to keep them within city limits. I'm skeptical that Soldier Field, totally upgraded and possibly anchored by a One Central sports/entertainment component, is even the right home for the Bears and the culture that accompanies the NFL. I'm kind of over it. That's why I think there is potential for a stadium near O'Hare.

[moorhosj1]

Didn't see this posted, but the Chicago Fire have a proposal for PD zoning to build a new team headquarters in the Belmont Cragin neighborhood.

The Fire presented its initial plans to the community at a virtual town hall on Thursday, June 10, 2021. The proposed complex at 5501 W. Fullerton Ave. would include a three-story performance center; seven soccer fields; modifications to Hanson Stadium to enable year-round use; parking; landscaping; and outdoor lighting.

The site, bounded by Fullerton, North, Grand and Central avenues, is owned by Chicago Public Schools (CPS) and Cook County. The Fire is planning on entering into a ground lease and shared use agreement with CPS to use the land and operate the facility. The use agreement would enable the general public to access a portion of the complex for various activities.

This is pretty close to another Joe Mansueto (owner of the Fire) proposal. This one is an office space in West Humboldt park.

Called The Terminal, the project is converting a cluster of three old warehouses at 1334 N. Kostner Ave. into office and community space, which will occupy 250,000 square feet on 6.9 acres.

Each of these developments are on the eastern edge of Austin. Any increased development, jobs, and street activity would go a long way in these areas.

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

maybe one of the most valuable sports teams in history can pony up for the "oh so necessary or we're totally going to go bankrupt" improvements they "need" and not rely on taxpayers to fund a stadium they already rebuilt once for them

huh? who is going bankrupt?

don't forget that soldier field is owned by the Chicago Parks District - so any renovation to that asset is most likely going to be paid for by the asset's owner

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

huh? who is going bankrupt?

don't forget that soldier field is owned by the Chicago Parks District - so any renovation to that asset is most likely going to be paid for by the asset's owner

who's going bankrupt? well, the city, hence why there aint no money for whatever bullshit the bears are crying house poor over. but you cant have it both ways and say theyre one of the most valuable franchises in history, and then have it be justified that they need taxpayer support or an incentive to be located in a particular location. clearly SF is a Park District facility and it has managed to work just fine up til now. theres nothing "wrong" with it, theyre just being greedy and want to build in even more revenue sources than they have today. but i agree that maybe the time has come to just let them go on their way. it dosent feel like theyre going to be satisfied with anything short of some mega stadium with a dome surrounded by a sea of parking since we keep seeming to have this conversation once every decade, and theres no way to make SF fit that mode nor the money to finance it. piggy banks empty. which brings me back to...what are we negotiating here exactly? if this is just about in-stadium advertising and naming rightss, well maybe those things are negotiable maybe theyre not, but it dosent really comport that if those are the issues they would need to be publicly shopping around for a big plot of land elsewhere

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

which brings me back to...what are we negotiating here exactly? if this is just about in-stadium advertising and naming rightss, well maybe those things are negotiable maybe theyre not, but it dosent really comport that if those are the issues they would need to be publicly shopping around for a big plot of land elsewhere

That’s the kicker, isn’t it?

I know the Bears were desperate for a new stadium and looking around before the pandemic started. They were looking pretty hard at the Tribune River District in 2019.

If the Bears have the private financing, they’re not staying at Soldier Field for any price. If they don’t have private financing, Arlington Heights, Chicago and Illinois certainly don’t have any spare funds to step in.

BUT it looks like the signage is for Rush Street Gaming and Rivers Casino.
https://www.sbcamericas.com/2021/06/...rivers-casino/

I think there’s a strong chance that the Chicago casino is the real aim of the negotiations. It’s the only thing of value to all the parties involved that would require playing hardball with Chicago while also threatening a move to Arlington Heights.

[marothisu]

Wasn't sure where to post this 100%, but Amazon bought a big site in West Humboldt Park. The last part of this from Mansueto isn't anything I've heard about.

Amazon plans warehouse, 'hundreds' of jobs in Humboldt Park

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/comm...-humboldt-park

The Seattle-based e-commerce giant last week paid more than $30 million for about 26 acres at the northwest corner of Kostner Avenue and Division Street in the West Side neighborhood, according to sources familiar with the deal. The company plans to build a 140,000-square-foot building on the property that will house a new Amazon delivery station and bring hundreds of jobs when it opens in late 2022, according to an Amazon spokesperson.

..

Amazon said it hired more than 15,000 people in Illinois last year—a 72 percent increase of its statewide workforce—and the company opened a half-dozen order fulfillment centers and delivery stations in Chicago neighborhoods such as Pullman and Gage Park and several suburbs since the beginning of 2020.

Amazon signed 21 new leases last year for a total of 11.7 million square feet of industrial space in the Chicago area, accounting for nearly a quarter of all new industrial space leased here last year, according to data from real estate services firm Colliers.

..

Mitts stressed in her statement that that is not the case in the 37th Ward, where residents "need the jobs and the economic investment." The company's spokesperson said it is hiring for jobs across its product distribution network with an average starting pay of at least $16 per hour and sign-on bonuses in most locations of up to $1,000.

"Long-standing issues of poverty and joblessness are exacerbating positive interest in Amazon’s arrival, to help offset the persistent violence happening in many communities such as Austin, West Garfield Park and West Humboldt (Park)," Mitts said in the statement.

..

Amazon is not requesting any city funding to help with its Humboldt Park project, according to Mitts, who said in her statement that the company plans to bring nearly 500 jobs to the facility.

..

Amazon's purchase comes as work continues on a $50 million industrial redevelopment immediately north of the property, where Chicago-based developer IBT and billionaire Morningstar founder Joe Mansueto are turning a 250,000-square-foot cluster of former warehouses at 1334 N. Kostner Ave. into creative office space, dubbed the Terminal.

[harryc]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Wasn't sure where to post this 100%, but Amazon bought a big site in West Humboldt Park. The last part of this from Mansueto isn't anything I've heard about.

Amazon plans warehouse, 'hundreds' of jobs in Humboldt Park

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/comm...-humboldt-park

Some industrial stuff will be lost

( listed as Allied Metal )

but the real loss - Again Auto Parts !

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

who's going bankrupt? well, the city, hence why there aint no money for whatever bullshit the bears are crying house poor over. but you cant have it both ways and say theyre one of the most valuable franchises in history, and then have it be justified that they need taxpayer support or an incentive to be located in a particular location. clearly SF is a Park District facility and it has managed to work just fine up til now. theres nothing "wrong" with it, theyre just being greedy and want to build in even more revenue sources than they have today. but i agree that maybe the time has come to just let them go on their way. it dosent feel like theyre going to be satisfied with anything short of some mega stadium with a dome surrounded by a sea of parking since we keep seeming to have this conversation once every decade, and theres no way to make SF fit that mode nor the money to finance it. piggy banks empty. which brings me back to...what are we negotiating here exactly? if this is just about in-stadium advertising and naming rightss, well maybe those things are negotiable maybe theyre not, but it dosent really comport that if those are the issues they would need to be publicly shopping around for a big plot of land elsewhere

The last renovation to the Chicago Park District’s stadium was paid for by increasing the hotel tax rate.

I do not support city or state incentives (other than maybe helping to coordinate a land transaction) and I think the bears should build a glittery new stadium within the city limits which they own outright and that’s likely what they want too so they can maximize their team’s value.

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by marothisu

The last part of this from Mansueto isn't anything I've heard about.

Look 4 posts above yours, there is an article about the West Humboldt office development.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

who's going bankrupt? well, the city, hence why there aint no money for whatever bullshit the bears are crying house poor over. but you cant have it both ways and say theyre one of the most valuable franchises in history, and then have it be justified that they need taxpayer support or an incentive to be located in a particular location. clearly SF is a Park District facility and it has managed to work just fine up til now. theres nothing "wrong" with it, theyre just being greedy and want to build in even more revenue sources than they have today. but i agree that maybe the time has come to just let them go on their way. it dosent feel like theyre going to be satisfied with anything short of some mega stadium with a dome surrounded by a sea of parking since we keep seeming to have this conversation once every decade, and theres no way to make SF fit that mode nor the money to finance it. piggy banks empty. which brings me back to...what are we negotiating here exactly? if this is just about in-stadium advertising and naming rightss, well maybe those things are negotiable maybe theyre not, but it dosent really comport that if those are the issues they would need to be publicly shopping around for a big plot of land elsewhere

I'm not one to argue for billionaires, but I haven't seen anything other than the words of Lightfoot that this is a negotiating tactic. The Bears themselves haven't said anything at all. I don't see what concessions they would be trying to get from the city to make Soldier Field equipped for a 21st century NFL team. Maybe they've already made up their mind to move to Arlington Heights? And in that case... fine? The city would still be getting the bulk tourists, diners, etc. that travel from out of the area to go a game. They would be far from the first sports team to play a few miles outside the eponymous city.

If I was to ever attend another live Bears game, I would rather hop on the Metra and sit in a warm, domed stadium with state-of-the-art facilities than walk the 2 miles from State/Roosevelt in blistering cold wind to sit in a 100-year-old bowl on the shore of Lake Michigan in December. I'm sure I'm not the only would-be spectator to feel that way.

I say more power to them, it's not like they are pulling a Dean Spanos and threatening to move completely out of the area if they don't get hundreds of millions of dollars for a stadium. Seems like they are just quietly preparing to move to a more feasible in-market location to maximize the potential of the team.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Handro

They would be far from the first sports team to play a few miles outside the eponymous city.

i suppose "few" is open to some interpretation.

but for actual numbers, arlington racecourse is ~25 miles from state/madison.

if they move, i'm out.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i suppose "few" is open to some interpretation.

but for actual numbers, arlington racecourse is ~25 miles from state/madison.

It's only about 11 miles from the actual border, though.

if they move, i'm out.

For what reason, though? It's easier to get to Arlington than Soldier Field via transit from Lincoln Square/North Center, I've mapped it from my place.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Handro

For what reason, though?

I'm a "chicago" fan.

not a "bears" fan.


if they ain't gonna be the CHICAGO bears anymore, they might as well be the fucking packers.

[the urban politician]

Meh, most of their fans live in the suburbs anyhow, so.... they won't lose anything just because a small handful of people have an odd requirement that a stadium be located within an arbitrary political boundary in order to attend a game.

My biggest beef with Arlington Heights, even though it would be very convenient to me, is that it screws South Chicagoland over. And that ain't cool

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Meh, most of their fans live in the suburbs anyhow, so.... they won't lose anything just because a small handful of people have an odd requirement that a stadium be located within an arbitrary political boundary in order to attend a game.

i'm not saying that the bears would lose much of anything.

only that i'll be done with them.


they are a private enterprise free to choose where they want to locate their home stadium.

and i am a private citizen free to choose which, if any, major league sports franchises i want to support.

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Meh, most of their fans live in the suburbs anyhow, so.... they won't lose anything just because a small handful of people have an odd requirement that a stadium be located within an arbitrary political boundary in order to attend a game.

My biggest beef with Arlington Heights, even though it would be very convenient to me, is that it screws South Chicagoland over. And that ain't cool

I've heard a lot of commentary about how this will be closer to their fan base. I just have a hard time figuring that, and I live in Arlington Heights myself!

For those that live in Highland Park, Naperville, Lincoln Park, or Orland Park this will not be an easier commute. It will really only be decidedly more accessible for those in the NW burbs and along the NW-Metra line. It is harge to argue that downtown Chicago is still not the transit nexus of the metro and that AH is. 180 years of history has been predicated on that fact.

I would be lying however that I would not be intrigued by the idea of a new stadium, be it in the city or in Arlington Heights, that was a beautiful glass-enclosed stadium similar to the Vikings Stadium. Anyway, perhaps this is very much a negotiating ploy by the Bears still (my bet is that it is) but it seems that this story will have some chapters in it. Perhaps time for a dedicated thread?

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

My biggest beef with Arlington Heights, even though it would be very convenient to me, is that it screws South Chicagoland over. And that ain't cool

100% this. Shades of the Atlanta Braves move to Cobb County a few years ago.

My guess is the Bears want to gain control of this land to package with the team in a sale. The group that buys the team will build the stadium (maybe with NFL's financial support/underwriting). Although the One Central situation is almost too perfect with Landmark's project list.

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by moorhosj1

100% this. Shades of the Atlanta Braves move to Cobb County a few years ago.

My guess is the Bears want to gain control of this land to package with the team in a sale. The group that buys the team will build the stadium (maybe with NFL's financial support/underwriting). Although the One Central situation is almost too perfect with Landmark's project list.

This brings up an interesting point. The Bears family have no real assets other than the Bears. Trying to leverage up the asset for a sale in the next decade is very much on their minds. I'm guessing they would want to to have some equity holdings in some real estate development around a new stadium, even if they sell the team.

The Bears also know that Landmark's plans, at least in small part, depend on the viability of a robust Soldier Field, their marketing has highlighted as much. So could this be as much a play by the Bears to become partners with Landmark in any development regarding the future of Soldier Field, be that part of a continued presence at SF, or even a new stadium within One Central property? I would be very surprised if there has not been talk and discussion about these matters and opportunities by the Bears and Landmark in the last years. If I'm the Bears I'm looking to be part of a real-estate equity holder in either AH or One Central for whenever they sell the team.

[sentinel]

Seeing transformations like this makes me even sadder for the current state of the languishing Uptown Theatre
https://www.archpaper.com/2021/06/fo...w-apple-store/

[Chi-Sky21]

Originally Posted by sentinel

Seeing transformations like this makes me even sadder for the current state of the languishing Uptown Theatre
https://www.archpaper.com/2021/06/fo...w-apple-store/

In a way yes , but not really because would you REALLY want it brought back to life as an Apple store or something like that? I would not.