CHICAGO | Da Bears | New Domed Lakefront Stadium Proposal

[Principality]

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

the name of a place cannot be trademarked so no one could charge a fee for usage of said name

If I was part of stadium funding negotiations that go on, I would certainly make that a hard line.

"Yeah we will pay for your stadium, but we get your BRAND. Deal?"

Let see them move towns then.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

yeah, the roof cantilever on the grandstand is pretty bad-ass.


source: wikipedia



I'm gonna miss arlington.

Yeah it going to suck missing that, but its location is right in the middle of the retail component of the plan. Wish they could find a way to incorporate it for something.

But as far as the Stadium is concerned, It would be pretty much everything I asked for. Now we just wait for the stadium details. One can look at other Maniac architecture Statia 14 completed project and visions in the link here, scroll to view them all. They have also done a lot of Arenas that are interesting. https://www.manicaarchitecture.com/p...egiant-stadium

the project will be one of the largest development projects in Illinois state history. We envision a multi-purpose entertainment district anchored by a new, best-in-class enclosed stadium, providing Chicagoland with a new home worthy of hosting global events such as the Super Bowl, College Football Playoffs, and Final Four.

The multi-purpose entertainment district is probably the hardest thing to achieve and could take many years after the stadium is complete.

Its probably the riskiest factor in the whole deal.

[Busy Bee]

If only Rosemont wasn't already built up. Would have been the best of both worlds.

[twister244]

Also - There's no way they don't put that stadium there without a major overhaul of the NW/53 interchange. My grandmother lived right by there, and I remember getting off 53 to visit here. It's a relatively small interchange that will choke up hardcore during any game. And surely, most gameday traffic will be coming from the South as 53 terminates shortly to the North. There's just no way you can build that stadium there without a major overhaul of the interchange. Who's gonna foot the money for that bill? I doubt the Bears are going to pony up money for that if they are financing the stadium themselves. I really hope the state doesn't cave on that end and have to fork over funds for an interchange rebuild, but I fear that will eventually happen.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by JK47

I feel like you are missing my point and misrepresenting what I was addressing. The issue here isn't funding infrastructure improvements like streets and sewers. The thing I was trying to point out which I think you missed is the distinction the Bears draw between declining to seek "direct" funding for structural stadium construction (again...an odd turn of phrase) and wanting to seek public subsidies for the remaining development. The implication there isn't that they want support for streets & sewers but for actually building and developing properties for the Bears.

In any event your point about public subsidizing any part of this development is just wasteful. Arlington Heights isn't a struggling community in need of a boost and the entity in question isn't a developer with optionality. The Bears have put themselves at a disadvantage tactically and the town, county, and state have too many other pressing needs on an already weak balance sheet.
The Bears are owned by millionaires and billionaires (Ryan) in a monopolistic cartel with other billionaires. They can pay full freight.

I'm not arguing that this development *should* receive a subsidy (regardless of what it pays for).

What I am saying is that this style of mixed-use development can't happen without public subsidy. The Bears claim that they need subsidy to make the mixed-use part happen, and we can take that claim at face value because similar developments like Lincoln Yards, The 78, etc have also requested a subsidy.

The amount matters, though. You're right to suspect that the subsidy for the mixed-use development could be a backdoor way of paying for the stadium.

If the Bears deleted the mixed-use section of the plans and just built a stadium, could they build it using their own resources? That's a question they probably won't answer.

Originally Posted by twister244

Also - There's no way they don't put that stadium there without a major overhaul of the NW/53 interchange. My grandmother lived right by there, and I remember getting off 53 to visit here. It's a relatively small interchange that will choke up hardcore during any game. And surely, most gameday traffic will be coming from the South as 53 terminates shortly to the North. There's just no way you can build that stadium there without a major overhaul of the interchange. Who's gonna foot the money for that bill? I doubt the Bears are going to pony up money for that if they are financing the stadium themselves. I really hope the state doesn't cave on that end and have to fork over funds for an interchange rebuild, but I fear that will eventually happen.

I don't think this is the case. Lambeau Field has a tremendous seating capacity; one of the largest in the NFL - this is the main highway interchange for Lambeau:
https://goo.gl/maps/g5cKn1zgxt96JTt36

Based on the site plan, it looks like they expect most traffic to go from the parking lots down Rohlwing to the Euclid interchange. Also, the entertainment district is a traffic management strategy. Game arrivals are spread out over several hours as people trickle in, but the exodus is usually when the worst traffic happens. If you can keep a good chunk of the fans on site getting a meal or drinking after the game, it will spread out the peak.

[bnk]

Interesting concept and I think has been shot down before, but as a thought experiment, what about another NFL team in Chicago as Lightfoot has suggested. While it is in the media, we might as well at least consider the possibilities.
Not sure if this is the best thread for this, someone can movie it if needed.


https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/be...ld-place-bears


Can Chicago host a second NFL team at Soldier Field?

SEP 2, 2022

BY RYAN TAYLOR
BEARS


The inevitable departure of the Chicago Bears out of Soldier Field is upon Bears fans. The gears are starting to turn surrounding the new stadium in Arlington Heights.


...

Soon enough, the city will be left with a stadium without a dome and one mainstay tenant (Chicago Fire).

Could the city bring in another tenant to replace the Chicago Bears?

"If I was the city, I would let the Bears get out of their lease for free," Ken Davis said on The Rush with Tony Gill. "On one condition -- you don't stop me from bringing in an AFC team."


There are two cities in the country that have two NFL teams. New York (Giants and Jets) and Los Angeles (Rams, Chargers) each have two NFL teams in their respective cities. Chicago is the third-largest city in America behind these two, so it's sensical to have another NFL team in the city if desired.


One could point to a small market team in the NFL wanting to maximize its franchise value elsewhere, like the Jacksonville Jaguars.

This is exactly what the Rams did in 2015. They moved from a small market location (St. Louis) to one of the largest cities and sports markets in the country (Los Angeles).

In Chicago's case, it would be a smoother transition for any team that wanted to move. Instead of a team having to pay for a stadium in their new location -- like the Rams did by spending $5 billion on SoFi stadium -- they could use the existing Soldier Field.

Back in late July, Mayor Lori Lightfoot rolled out a three-pronged plan to renovate Soldier Field. The main concept was constructing a dome over the field to maximize the stadium's usage for year-round events and to convince the Bears from moving out, thus costing the city valuable profits.

Another option intends to make the stadium into a "multi-purpose" arena, mainly for their soccer tenant -- the Chicago Fire.

The third option, on the other hand, aims at making the stadium "dome ready." The option turned some heads. What does "dome ready" mean?

"There's plenty of cities that have two NFL teams," Lightfoot said during the unveiling of the city's plan for renovating Soldier Field.

Lightfoot is playing hardball with the Bears. The city is trying to make Soldier Field move-in ready, all any team has to do is sign a lease and move in, and maybe construct a dome if it wants.

However, it isn't that simple. Any relocating team needs valid reasoning to leave their current location -- which cannot be revenue driven. They also need 75 percent of the vote from league members.

Article 4.3 requires prior approval by the affirmative vote of three-fourths of the member clubs before a club may transfer its franchise or playing site to a different city either within or outside its existing home territory.
The idea itself seems plausible.

...

If the NFL wanted to expand the league, why not put another team in one of the largest sports markets in the country? Chicago has the capacity to hold two NFL teams. The city set itself up to welcome a new team, if the Bears leave.

Even if the city doesn't attract another NFL team to rent out Soldier Field, they likely will compete with the Bears for business. If the city can find the funds to construct a dome over Soldier Field, they could attract events away from the Bears new stadium.

The Bears will presumably build a dome or retractable roof on a new stadium for the same business reasons as the city would with Soldier Field. But, why would any event want to rent in Arlington Heights when they could go to downtown Chicago?

The city could steal concerts, NCAA tournament games, WWE matches, etc. away from the Bears and its stadium. All they need to do is find the funding to put a dome over Soldier Field, which is easier said than done.

The Bears created an extremely tough situation for the city of Chicago when they announced the organization signed the purchasing rights to Arlington Park back in September.

Could the city strike back with a savvy counter punch?










I don't buy Crain's But I would be interested in hearing what they said.


https://www.chicagobusiness.com/spor...econd-nfl-team

September 06, 2022 05:45 AM

What about a second NFL team for Chicago?

Mayor Lori Lightfoot hinted at the possibility of Chicago hosting two pro football teams. The reality of such a move is complicated.

CORLI JAY



...








Also reported here


https://www.playillinois.com/2nd-nfl-team-in-chicago/

[sentinel]

Yes absolutely, Chicago can and should host another NFL team - it is a complicated and long-term endeavor, but why the hell not?

[bnk]

Originally Posted by sentinel

Yes absolutely, Chicago can and should host another NFL team - it is a complicated and long-term endeavor, but why the hell not?

I like your spunk and the cut of your jib

But I kind of expected a total knock down saying even the idea was insulting and insane.


But it has happened before. Its not a lone president.



I think honestly its almost cannot happen because politically the Bears have NFL and AFC voting rights but only one out of many.




I do not think the bears have that much clout honestly. 20 years ago perhaps.

But money can follow media markets.



Its certainly a long shot, but a long shot I would love to have.

The waiting list for a Bears season ticket is longer than any other Chicago team.



It's not quite as difficult as getting a Green Bay season ticket, around a 30 year wait!


But honestly, it is not easy getting into a Bears game unless you know someone.


That Said


IMO

NFL is better watched on the TV esp now with all of the replays and the camera on the wire.
But if one wants to see and live the experince.

Going to Madison playing a huge Big Ten game your better off driving a couple hours north and west.

Going to NW is very easy. But it never has that all day event you can get at ND being the closest.



The Best bang for the buck, if you really want to watch a huge game that has huge student sections and all of the pomp and that goes with it


Madison is one of Chicagoland's best chance to see a game like something that goes on in Michigan or Ohio State.


I have been to Madison for many games. That is real excitement.


Plus my daughter goes

[ god bless her I love her so and she so loves it up there, I am very lucky for that]

there and is a sophomore and I get to see her too in the process so perhaps I have a collage bias, but I always liked collage ball better than the NFL.


The only team i'm interested in the NFL is the Bears, and have little interest in other NFL teams. I no longer play fantasy football, and hardly bet on any teams anymore regardless of their level of competition.

But there are at least 8-9 teams in the Big Ten I will sit down and watch easy on a Saturday morning afternoon or evening.

Thank you the Big Ten network.


One of the things I required to get when I got cable TV,

[left of center]

I'm game for a 2nd team. Chicago already has along history of having multiple NFL teams, as it hosted the Chicago Cardinals up until 1960, when they moved to St. Louis and then ultimately Arizona.

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by bnk

Interesting concept and I think has been shot down before, but as a thought experiment, what about another NFL team in Chicago as Lightfoot has suggested. While it is in the media, we might as well at least consider the possibilities.
Not sure if this is the best thread for this, someone can movie it if needed.


There are two cities in the country that have two NFL teams. New York (Giants and Jets) and Los Angeles (Rams, Chargers) each have two NFL teams in their respective cities. Chicago is the third-largest city in America behind these two, so it's sensical to have another NFL team in the city if desired.

A hard truth is that LA and NY metro sizes are roughly twice the size of Chicago. Even there the huge expense of stadiums was shared by the two respective teams in the metros. Chicago is more similar in size to metros like the Bay Area which just lost Oakland in the last few years. Chicago once had a 2nd team and they bailed. That said another similar metro (DC/Baltimore) also qualifies arguably as a two-team metro market.

I would put the odds at less than 10% of luring another team to what will be just an ever aging Soldier Field. If the NFL expands it will likely go overseas to untapped markets. I don't envision any teams (save maybe the Jaguars?) that have the potential to bail on their city soon. Any team that would move into SF would face the same issue as the Bears. They wouldn't be the owners of their stadium, they would likely be playing in one of the smallest stadiums in the league, and they would be trying to eat into a Bears faithful fanbase........

.....One idea that I have not given much thought to but saw it suggested today was, what about the White Sox moving to a reconfigured Soldier Field in the next 5-10 years? Sox players hitting dingers up into the (again) exposed west colonnades. No dome needed. The vistas and sightlines would be uniquely awesome. Relatively close to the downtown after work crowd for night games. Hang out the game for weekend day games and then hang out by the lake after. I see potential in the idea. It would make the whole idea of One Central much more viable given the increased amount of traffic. I think very few Sox fans will be to upset at the idea of the Sox moving from the current GRF whenever it happens. Oh, and by the way the Sox lease is up in 2030. Could be just enough time to kick the Bears out and retrofit the stadium into a ballpark.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

.....One idea that I have not given much thought to but saw it suggested today was, what about the White Sox moving to a reconfigured Soldier Field in the next 5-10 years?

kinda hard for me to envision how an MLB field would fit inside the SF footprint.

https://acme.com/same_scale/#41.8622...7.63357,18,S,S

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee;9724391[B

]A hard truth is that LA and NY metro sizes are roughly twice the size of Chicago.[/B] Even there the huge expense of stadiums was shared by the two respective teams in the metros. Chicago is more similar in size to metros like the Bay Area which just lost Oakland in the last few years. Chicago once had a 2nd team and they bailed. That said another similar metro (DC/Baltimore) also qualifies arguably as a two-team metro market.

It's really easy to look up this info before posting it, especially claiming "a hard truth"

Population (2020 Census):
Los Angeles MSA: 13,200,998 people
Chicago MSA: 9,618,502
San Francisco + San Jose MSAs: 6,749,476
San Francisco MSA alone: 4,749,008

Los Angeles MSA is 37.2% larger than Chicago's by population - not 100% larger. Not even close. Chicago is 42.5% larger in population than the San Francisco MSA and San Jose MSA combined. Chicago is also over double the population as the San Francisco MSA alone which is where both teams were located (San Francisco and Oakland).


There is technically no reason that Chicago cannot handle 2 NFL teams. Given Shahid Khan's Illinois connections, I say he just moves the Jags to Chicago and have them play in Soldier Field once (if) the Bears go to the suburbs. Jacksonville had the 5th worst attendance percentage of any NFL team last year and not much better in 2019. Not that they'd magically get better by moving, but it would be quite interesting to see how much support there would be. But it would be really weird, I'm not going to lie. I think all the Bears fans would totally feel weird about another NFL team coming in and playing in the home of the Bears for the last 50 seasons.

[nomarandlee]

I don't really feel like petty arguments about MSAs or CSA's and the definitions and qualifications of particular cases. If you want to treat the 4.5million in Riverside/Inland Empire as not part of the Los Angles metro area then cool. If you want to suggest the 2 million around San Jose is not part of the Bay Area metro then cool as well.

For all intents and purposes when it comes to sports TV markets and fanbases I would suggest they are. The important factors for fan bases and football viewers/attendees are not commutes, road/transit integration, or continuous density tracts.

CSA

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

I don't really feel like petty arguments about MSAs or CSA's and the definitions and qualifications of particular cases. If you want to treat the 4.5million in Riverside/Inland Empire as not part of the Los Angles metro area then cool. If you want to suggest the 2 million around San Jose is not part of the Bay Area metro then cool as well.

Ummmmm

Originally Posted by marothisu

It's really easy to look up this info before posting it, especially claiming "a hard truth"

Population (2020 Census):
Los Angeles MSA: 13,200,998 people
Chicago MSA: 9,618,502
San Francisco + San Jose MSAs: 6,749,476
San Francisco MSA alone: 4,749,008

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

For all intents and purposes when it comes to sports TV markets and fanbases I would suggest they are. The important factors for fan bases and football viewers/attendees are not commutes, road/transit integration, or continuous density tracts.

TV Markets aren't determined by MSA or CSA. There is something called DMA from Nielsen which is how the geographical spread for markets are determined. This is the actual number of homes are in each market:

https://oaaa.org/Portals/0/Public%20...s%20Report.pdf

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/nba...elsen-ratings/

NYC DMA: 7,452,620 homes
Los Angeles DMA: 5,735,230
Washington DC + Baltimore DMA: 3,695,410
Chicago DMA: 3,471,560
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose DMA: 2,653,270


As you alluded to before - DC+Baltimore. They have 2 teams and are very close to the Chicago market in size. Furthermore, the Bay Area was totally fine in supporting 2 teams. The Raiders' stadium wasn't adequate basically and then they ended up moving to Vegas. It had nothing to do with the market not being able to support both teams (which they did). In 2018, the Raiders and 49ers were both in the top 5 for the season for attendance percentage. And in terms of overall attendance:

NY Jets + NY Giants: 1,074,574
LA Chargers + LA Rams: 1,064,381
Washington Redskins + Baltimore Ravens: 1,044,872
Oakland Raiders + San Francisco 49ers: 991,501

No doubt in my mind that Chicago could handle 2 teams technically. The only question is with so many die hard Bears fans, how hard will it be to get new fans.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by marothisu

But it would be really weird, I'm not going to lie. I think all the Bears fans would totally feel weird about another NFL team coming in and playing in the home of the Bears for the last 50 seasons.

Well, it would feel like cheating on your partner you've been with for decades but hasn't put out since 1986......

Then again, Cubs fans waited even longer. So.... Maybe that says more about Chicago sports fans than it does anything else.

[left of center]

Another bump on this road is the fact that the Bears get to veto any team moving into their designated market:

A massive stumbling block to such a proposal would be an NFL rule that would require the Bears to sign off on another team moving into the market. Teams have veto power on allowing other clubs to move, or expand, into their designated market, and the Bears could either veto that possibility outright, or could try to convince any new team to share their stadium in Arlington Heights instead.

Source: https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/spor...hs-in/2897712/

I fairly certain the Bears wouldn't allow any other team a slice of their market, which is effectively the largest single team NFL market in the US. They would be pretty keen to keep it that way. That said, there could be other ways for this to go forward, such as if all the other teams were in favor of a team moving here and the NFL commissioner also wanted it to happen. The only reason I would see all other parties galvanized behind such a move is if one existing team was facing economic hardship and had no other choice but to move to Chicago, or if it was part of a large league expansion with multiple new teams. That said, there are other metros that could host such teams (St. Louis comes to mind). So if the Jags decided to leave Jacksonville, or the NFL needed an extra slot for a multi team expansion, Chicago may be in the mix, but there might be easier options than angering the Bears.

[ardecila]

I have to say that as a planning exercise, this is best-in-class for NFL stadiums. The mixed-use neighborhood appears to be well-planned, the integration to transit is real, and the landscape vision for a green corridor along Salt Creek would make Olmsted proud.

Of course, the Bears' current location is even better in terms of urbanism - gotta keep that in perspective. But I think if they build out the Arlington Park location as shown, it will be a model for other cities to follow, not just for NFL stadiums but for densifying the suburbs. Chicago's really lagged behind other cities in adopting New Urbanism, and when developers pitch a "New Urbanist" product it tends to be more suburban sprawl with a bike path and some 4+1 apartment buildings with a brick veneer. Sprawl in a green dress, like the old Motorola campus in Schaumburg or The Clove in Buffalo Grove. But the Bears proposal is next level - no surface parking lots visible except at the stadium. I just hope it isn't watered down.

I also am encouraged to see that Arlington Heights residents seem open to a huge new dense mixed-use development in their backyard, and even a stadium so long as they aren't footing the bill. At least from what I've seen in the media, we haven't really gotten any of the usual NIMBY complaints.

[bnk]

Not a surprise, they don't build retractable domes anymore, too expensive.
I do very much like Miller Park though.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...te-new-stadium

Chicago Bears say 'singular focus' is on suburban Arlington Park site for new stadium



ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, Ill. -- While still in the early stages of development, the Chicago Bears are moving forward with their plan to eventually leave Soldier Field and build a new stadium in the northwest suburbs of Chicago on the 326-acre Arlington Park site.

"Right now, we don't have a Plan B," Bears president and CEO Ted Phillips said Thursday. "Our singular focus is on this property."


The Bears hosted a two-hour community meeting for Arlington Heights-area residents on Thursday to discuss their conceptual plans for developing the former site of the Arlington International Racecourse, which closed last year after hosting thoroughbred racing for 94 years. The team has been under contract on the property since September 2021, when it signed a $197.2 million purchase and sale agreement.

A potential stadium has not yet been designed, according to Phillips, but will be an "enclosed" structure with an expected capacity that exceeds Soldier Field's league-low 61,500 seats.

"We're not anticipating a retractable dome," Phillips said. "Often times what we've seen with retractable domes is [that] the costs are prohibitive, the return isn't there, there's mechanical issues."


Phillips added: "Hopefully it can attract major events like the Super Bowl, College Football Playoff, concerts, the Final Four. We don't have a facility like that now."

Phillips was met with applause when he stated that the team would not be discussing any alternative sites to build a stadium, nor would it be considering renovations of Soldier Field.

Bears chairman George McCaskey told a half-full gymnasium at John Hersey High School that the entire project could take more than 10 years to complete and that a new stadium would make up less than half of the development, which would include restaurants, retail and office space, housing, a hotel, fitness center, new parks, ponds and open areas.

"My family and I are not real estate developers," McCaskey said. "We are not financiers. We are privileged to own a beloved football team that is an important community asset. We take that responsibility to heart. It is our life's passion. We do recognize what might be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity."

McCaskey said the Bears will "seek no public funding for direct stadium structure construction" but would need assistance in order to complete the rest of the multibillion-dollar project. The necessary infrastructure, like roads and sewers, is what the Bears will need taxpayer help with or "will not be able to move forward" with the project, according to McCaskey.

In fielding questions from attendees, Phillips clarified that no buildings on the Arlington Park site will be constructed with public funds.


"We're not asking for property taxes to be raised in Arlington Heights to fund the stadium construction," McCaskey said. "It's not our part to say that property taxes for Arlington Heights residents won't go up, but that might be for reasons that have nothing to do with this construction."

....

[Klippenstein]

Why can't they reuse the racecourse grandstand? It would seem like a real shame to demolish the grandstand for the land to just sit vacant for 20 years until they can finally develop the whole thing. I'm not talking about the track or anything else, but surely the grandstand could be repurposed and create an amazing public plaza in front of it.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by bnk

Not a surprise, they don't build retractable domes anymore, too expensive.

yeah, too expensive and too many potential (and also expensive) headaches.

how do you get any ROI on blowing another $500M on some fancy retractable roof when bears nation is going to fill the seats regardless of whether or not the roof opens up?

sure, it'd be a nice amenity for the fans to be able to open it up on nice days, but with the new style fixed roofs letting in lots of natural daylight anyway (like sofi), why bother with all of that added cost you're never gonna get a return on and the potential trouble down the road when/if it malfunctions?