Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Arlington Park was shut down for good in 2021. Horse racing at the track was O-V-U-H.Makes no sense. The gov is not going to give the bears money. Lawsuits will drag on for years if trying to build on the lakefront.
Is this just a ploy to play chicken with the AH area school taxing bodies?
Way to ruin a great racetrack facility.
Is this just a ploy to play chicken with the AH area school taxing bodies?
Absolutely.
The betting world that exists today did that.
There are a myriad of reasons why the Museum campus makes no sense. Being completely inaccessible by light rail and a giant lake cutting off access from all points to the East is certainly one reason.The Bears want to build a world class stadium and facilities to attract events like the Superbowl, Final 4, Olympics etc. I find it interesting they never talked about the big issue with the City. Crime! Chicago reputation around the world is terrible. People are not thrilled to come to the city if they don’t make it safe. IMO
The Bear gameday experience v those of the Sox, Bulls, Hawks and Cubs comes up the least in those conversations for a variety of factors. Small # of games/year that usually finish before dark, a relatively isolated location with little neighborhood surface street or (old) public housing exposure, the chance a miscreant gets more than they bargained for from groups of liquored up 250 lb+ dudes etc. I will agree that if there is lot more reliance on distant parking and public transit then today, could be a much greater concern.The Bears want to build a world class stadium and facilities to attract events like the Superbowl, Final 4, Olympics etc. I find it interesting they never talked about the big issue with the City. Crime! Chicago reputation around the world is terrible. People are not thrilled to come to the city if they don’t make it safe. IMO
The Bear gameday experience v those of the Sox, Bulls, Hawks and Cubs comes up the least in those conversations for a variety of factors. Small # of games/year that usually finish before dark, a relatively isolated location with little neighborhood surface street or (old) public housing exposure, the chance a miscreant gets more than they bargained for from groups of liquored up 250 lb+ dudes etc. I will agree that if there is lot more reliance on distant parking and public transit then today, could be a much greater concern.
My guess is they don’t have the liquidity to drop 5-6 billion.There are a myriad of reasons why the Museum campus makes no sense. Being completely inaccessible by light rail and a giant lake cutting off access from all points to the East is certainly one reason.
The biggest concern comes down to why in the world would a business want to drop 2 billion on an entity that they will not own when they could instead drop 5-6 billion and own all future revenue generated from major events (and even leases from hotel and casino companies desiring to operate on their new campus). And oh yea, they have already dropped 200 million into that project which they could potentially own and double the value of their franchise.
Owning your own stadium is a massive advantage. Hoping the city and state tell the Bears to go pound sand and they have to go back to the project they already began in Arlington.
Agreed that is likely the case, especially with the net worth of the family being largely the franchise.My guess is they don’t have the liquidity to drop 5-6 billion.
It was Lucas actually. He took his museum to LA where it is scheduled to open in 2025.This isn't happening and financing has nothing to do with it. Friends of the Parks will never let it happen. If they ran Spielberg and Obama off the lakefront the Bears don't stand a chance.
The plan laid out actually makes more green space than currently there. I still think they end up in AHThis isn't happening and financing has nothing to do with it. Friends of the Parks will never let it happen. If they ran Spielberg and Obama off the lakefront the Bears don't stand a chance.
Rotation maybe not but I think they would probably get more than one.All the Super Bowl talk...there is not one cold weather city in the Super Bowl rotation. I hope they understand that they would get the Super Bowl once then never see it again.
Tough to make that argument with February weather in Chicago. Yes, the stadium would be domed but the Super Bowl has turned into a week long event with many events held outdoors.Rotation maybe not but I think they would probably get more than one.
70,000 is the Super Bowl minimum but you can have temporary seats so they would have to add 5,000 but the bigger deal is 35,000 parking spot within a mile there are 5,800 at McCormick Place so it depends on how close parking decks are in the Loop. The NFL may waive the requirement one time but after that the Super Bowl is never coming back.Tough to make that argument with February weather in Chicago. Yes, the stadium would be domed but the Super Bowl has turned into a week long event with many events held outdoors.
The lack of accessible parking for an event like that would be beyond a nightmare.
Plus if the renderings and initial info is correct the new stadium still wouldn't have the required seating capacity to host a Super Bowl, which I believe is 75,000. What I read said the new stadium would have similar seating to Soldier Field at 65,000 and could hold up to 77,000 for a Final Four.
SubCubThey had Ted Phillips do the AH purchase and said AH was their sole focus. They thought they could bully the school districts/AH and that didn't work. Then they bring in Kevin Warren and he's trying to leverage AH with Chicago. This has all be done backwards, they know this isn't gonna happen on the lakefront, no way they are that dumb.
Also, a very interesting to choose to announce the day before they are drafting a franchise QB...almost like a Friday afternoon news dump.
Tough to make that argument with February weather in Chicago. Yes, the stadium would be domed but the Super Bowl has turned into a week long event with many events held outdoors.
The lack of accessible parking for an event like that would be beyond a nightmare.
Plus if the renderings and initial info is correct the new stadium still wouldn't have the required seating capacity to host a Super Bowl, which I believe is 75,000. What I read said the new stadium would have similar seating to Soldier Field at 65,000 and could hold up to 77,000 for a Final Four.
They’d waive it but it’s still a nightmare.70,000 is the Super Bowl minimum but you can have temporary seats so they would have to add 5,000 but the bigger deal is 35,000 parking spot within a mile there are 5,800 at McCormick Place so it depends on how close parking decks are in the Loop. The NFL may waive the requirement one time but after that the Super Bowl is never coming back.
The issue, at least from a legal stake isn't strictly the green space. It's public v private ownership. They've said it's publically owned, but that sure seems in name only.The plan laid out actually makes more green space than currently there. I still think they end up in AH
Can you please cite a source for where they have said that? I don't doubt you, but I want to see it in context. I don't understand why they would spend $2 billion of their own money on a stadium and not want ownership of it.The issue, at least from a legal stake isn't strictly the green space. It's public v private ownership. They've said it's publically owned, but that sure seems in name only.
Can you please cite a source for where they have said that? I don't doubt you, but I want to see it in context. I don't understand why they would spend $2 billion of their own money on a stadium and not want ownership of it.
Thanks.The Burnham Park Project includes a new publicly-owned multipurpose replacement stadium located just south of Soldier Field that's part of a singular year-round hub centered on park-based culture and recreation.
https://www.chicagobears.com/news/bears-release-plans-for-stadium-project-in-chicago
Reports say they want revenue from non-Bears eventss included in the lease agreement. That's why I say it's public in name only. Today they just get their gate revenue, concessions, and a portion of parking. But now concerts and events and ancillary revenue also would stay with Bears too.Thanks.
The press release goes on to say, "The Bears have pledged to contribute more than $2 billion to the project—over 70% of the total stadium cost. The remaining stadium funds are proposed to come from the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority (ISFA), a government entity that was created by the Illinois General Assembly in 1987 for the purpose of constructing and renovating sports stadiums for professional teams in the state of Illinois."
If the Bears are going to foot the bill for "over 70% of the total stadium cost," why would they not want at least 70% ownership of the stadium? Are they basically gifting their "share" of the stadium to the ISFA? I fail to see the business sense here. What am I missing?
Plus, doesn't the Park District own the land on which the stadium will be built? So then they will lease or sell the land to the eventual owner? Perhaps the overall project cost includes purchase of the land (assuming the Park District is a willing seller). Lots of questions.
You're probably a very happy man this morning.Owning your own stadium is a massive advantage. Hoping the city and state tell the Bears to go pound sand and they have to go back to the project they already began in Arlington.