Oh, and I would so much rather go to games in Arlington Heights than go through the pain of attending a game at the Lakefront venue. The existing Soldier Field is a real pain regarding that location's fan experience. I care zero for the "view" there. You just hope you don't end up a crime victim nowadays in that area. The logistics suck. And it especially sucks in bitter cold/crappy weather.
But I don't live in Chicago either. I'm driving to games from outside the City.
yeah, look at that MSU video, Where's all the parking? they're taking away a parking lot and putting the stadium there. It'll all be public transport in. No thanks on that deal alone. Tailgating? I don't see a spot for it.
Sure this would be awesome to keep the stadium basically where its at. I just see a ton of miss opportunity not going for AH.
Hotels, Restaurants, Casino, Bars all own by the Bears. Imagine a major non Football event. They need a place to sleep after flying out here. They would make a killing in money.
Yeah, the Lakefront thing is such a long shot to ever happen. I wish they would do a poll of people (and not just Bears fans) on what they want. I don't think the people even WANT this to happen - more debt on the taxpayers back. If the McCaskey's want a new stadium then build one on their own land in Arlington Heights.
LINK Friends of the Parks responds to Bears' new stadium proposal Friends of the Parks, which successfully sued to prevent George Lucas from building a museum along the lakefront, has previously voiced opposition to the construction of any new stadium project on Museum Campus, where the Bears are proposing for their new stadium site
Friends of the Parks, which successfully sued to prevent George Lucas from building a museum along the lakefront, has previously voiced opposition to the construction of any new stadium project on Museum Campus, where the Bears are proposing for their new stadium site.
"The 'Chicago Way' was on full display at the Chicago Bears news conference today. Once again, Chicago taxpayers are being told what is good for them. We are told that a new domed stadium on protected lakefront land will make Chicago a great city," the group said in response to the announcement. "We are already a great city—in large part due to our protected lakefront. As is so often the case in Chicago, the powerful and wealthy are demanding that our entire city stop and fast track their plans to expand operations on the people’s lakefront."
LINK Chicago Bears look for public financing in building a new stadium
“I just think that the taxpayers’ dollars need to be protected and I think it’s my job to be a good steward of those dollars,” said Pritzker.
Senate President Don Harmon, D-Oak Park, issued a statement regarding the Chicago Bears’ stadium proposal.
“At first glance, more than $2 billion in private funding is better than zero and a more credible opening offer,” said Harmon. “But there’s an obvious, substantial gap remaining, and I echo the governor’s skepticism.”
To make the plan a reality, the Bears want the Illinois General Assembly to approve $1.5 billion in new bonding for the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority.
House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch, D-Hillside, said the request would have little chance.
“If we were to put this issue on the board for a vote right now, it would fail and it would fail miserably,” Welch said. “There’s no environment for something like this today.”
Taxpayers still owe more than $600 million for past renovations of Soldier Field and Guaranteed Rate Field, whose occupants, the White Sox, also are looking to build a new stadium with help from taxpayers.
One last laughable thought. Only the McCaskeys would ask for more tax burden on people in an election year environment when people are white-hot pissed over taxes and for that matter politicians wanting to get into our pockets for more money.
670 the Score called it "an absolute con job" attempt today. A scam of the public to pay for this. They do a slick video and cheerleader thing to con people into going along with this. And rightfully so, they call out some of the claims today as flat lying here.
Their words. Lying.
The taxpayers still owe almost all of the tax burden from the 2002 space ship reno thing. Like paying interest on credit cards here... the principal is still mostly unpaid.
Oh, and I would so much rather go to games in Arlington Heights than go through the pain of attending a game at the Lakefront venue. The existing Soldier Field is a real pain regarding that location's fan experience. I care zero for the "view" there. You just hope you don't end up a crime victim nowadays in that area. The logistics suck. And it especially sucks in bitter cold/crappy weather.
But I don't live in Chicago either. I'm driving to games from outside the City.
As someone who does it every year, I can tell you its horrible. The access sucks, the stadium sucks, and the amenities suck. I've been to way better stadiums in other cities. The only thing that is great is the lakefront and skyline views in September. And by week 6 or so, the weather sucks too.
The parking, access, and funding have been discussed a lot in everything I have read. The elephant in the room that I have not seen discussed is the transition fiasco that will inevitably occur unless the Bears play somewhere else until completion. A project of this size will take several years to complete and they will not be able to demolish SF until after the new stadium is complete. With two phases you will have 3-5 years to build the new stadium then another 1-3 years for demolition and restoration of the old SF site. During this time, attending a game will be a nightmare. Given the publicly funded venture on a controversial site, I expect timing and costs to be negatively impacted. Also, what stadium project lately has actually come in on plan and on budget?
The parking, access, and funding have been discussed a lot in everything I have read. The elephant in the room that I have not seen discussed is the transition fiasco that will inevitably occur unless the Bears play somewhere else until completion. A project of this size will take several years to complete and they will not be able to demolish SF until after the new stadium is complete. With two phases you will have 3-5 years to build the new stadium then another 1-3 years for demolition and restoration of the old SF site. During this time, attending a game will be a nightmare. Given the publicly funded venture on a controversial site, I expect timing and costs to be negatively impacted. Also, what stadium project lately has actually come in on plan and on budget?
+1 Every one of those things crossed my mind too. It would seem easiest to just build in Arlington Heights while the Bears continue to honor their existing contract with Chicago for now, playing in Soldier Field while the new stadium is built in AH. But hey, I don't claim to know anything.
The parking, access, and funding have been discussed a lot in everything I have read. The elephant in the room that I have not seen discussed is the transition fiasco that will inevitably occur unless the Bears play somewhere else until completion. A project of this size will take several years to complete and they will not be able to demolish SF until after the new stadium is complete. With two phases you will have 3-5 years to build the new stadium then another 1-3 years for demolition and restoration of the old SF site. During this time, attending a game will be a nightmare. Given the publicly funded venture on a controversial site, I expect timing and costs to be negatively impacted. Also, what stadium project lately has actually come in on plan and on budget?
+1 Every one of those things crossed my mind too. It would seem easiest to just build in Arlington Heights while the Bears continue to honor their existing contract with Chicago for now, playing in Soldier Field while the new stadium is built in AH. But hey, I don't claim to know anything.
That is what I think too. I wonder if this is all smoke screen hiding other negotiations or something like that.
But it could be what they are really trying to do. And I have been following a lot of stuff on localized social media and the lakefront deal is really, really unpopular,
+1 Every one of those things crossed my mind too. It would seem easiest to just build in Arlington Heights while the Bears continue to honor their existing contract with Chicago for now, playing in Soldier Field while the new stadium is built in AH. But hey, I don't claim to know anything.
That is what I think too. I wonder if this is all smoke screen hiding other negotiations or something like that.
But it could be what they are really trying to do. And I have been following a lot of stuff on localized social media and the lakefront deal is really, really unpopular,
+1,000 And most Chicago Bears fans (who you would THINK would like this Lakefront deal) are against it. Even the fans are not on board. The Illinois politicians are coming out one by one against it (LOL, even the spendthrift Democrats... and that's saying something). I just have the feeling the Arlington Heights people were the first to overplay their hand. But they have (since) changed and compromised to a point that the deal sure makes sense in AR now. So what do the Bears do? I think they THEN overplayed THEIR hand and are going to end up with egg on their faces - looking stupid - because virtually nobody outside of the McCaskeys and the Mayor seem to like this deal. It is a non-starter. Not happening.
