Bears New Stadium Nonsense Repository

[Grizzled]

Bears urged to consider Michael Reese hospital site for domed stadium to avoid lakefront legal battle

Friends of the Parks urged the Bears on Monday to consider building a domed stadium on the old Michael Reese Hospital site to avoid a legal battle akin to the fight that stopped filmmaker George Lucas from building a movie museum on the same site.

One day after the Bears offered to spend $2 billion in private money to help build a publicly-owned domed stadium south of Soldier Field, Friends of the Parks board member Fred Bates was not appeased by the team’s sketchy promise to create nearly 20% more open space, presumably by carefully demolishing Soldier Field while preserving its war memorial and historic colonnades.

Friends of the Parks needs a better understanding of what exactly the Bears propose, how they plan to pay for it and what, if anything, is “in the cards” for McCormick Place East and Northerly Island, Bates said. Only then can the group decide whether to use the Lakefront Protection Ordinance to mount the legal equivalent of a goal line stand.

But the group firmly believes it's “inappropriate and legally challengeable to build a stadium on the lakefront in a way that is, essentially, a private enterprise,” Bates said.

“There are so many other extremely viable alternatives. It’s puzzling to us that things that would meaningfully impact neighborhoods around the city are not being considered by the Bears. And they’re quite viable in terms of transportation access,” Bates said.

“The Michael Reese site, for example, is extremely accessible to public transportation compared to the lakefront.”

State Rep. Kam Buckner (D-Chicago) represents a district that includes both Soldier Field as well as the 48.6-acre Michael Reese Hospital site that a Farpoint Development-led team plans to turn into a project known as the “Bronzeville Lakefront.”

The first phase of the roughly $4 billion project is expected to include a research facility operated by Israel's Sheba Medical Center, plus senior housing and a community welcoming center on the southern portion of the property.

“I’ve heard the Michael Reese piece a lot more recently" as a Bears alternative, though "I don’t know if that fits in with what they’re trying to do," Buckner said.

“ If Michael Reese works for the Bears and it’s not going to be burdensome on the people, then we should talk about that," he added.

Scott Goodman, a principal of the Farpoint team that purchased the Reese site from the city, said he’s had “no conversations” with the Bears about possibly putting a stadium on the site.

“We are thrilled that the Bears have decided to stay in the city and we do believe they belong on the lakefront," Goodman said. "We certainly have the acreage, so I guess that makes it a possibility.”

Former Illinois Governor Pat Quinn is vowing to reprise the fight he waged to keep the name “Soldier Field." In 2001, pressured by then-Mayor Richard M. Daley, the Bears agreed to never sell corporate naming rights to the stadium, forfeiting $300 million or more. Veterans groups and Quinn had pleaded with Daley to stop the "commercial desecration" of a stadium dedicated to the men and women who served in the armed forces.

A new stadium may not be called Soldier Field, but “if the public owns the stadium, why do you let a private corporation sell the name and collect money?” Quinn said.
...

Marc Ganis, a Chicago-based consultant who has advised NFL teams on stadium issues, said the domed stadium alone likely will cost more than $3 billion — not counting deconstructing Soldier Field, improving lakefront access, creating new lakefront park space and developing bars, restaurants, and more around the new stadium.

But Ganis said he understands why the Bears felt compelled to do something as they try to keep up with 88-year-old Sox Chairman Jerry Reinsdorf in seeking stadium dollars and financing.
...

Full article: https://chicago.suntimes.com/city-hall/ ... -white-sox

48.6 acres hardly seems enough when the Bears have over 6 times that space at Arlington Heights.

There isn't that ambiance of building on the lakefront also. But Friends of the Park, who shot down George Lucas' planned museum, approximate project cost of over $700M, have vowed to go to the mat on a stadium on the South Lot. The Michael Reese site seems a bit small and there's already some type of development, 'Bronzeville', planned on it.

[Bears Whiskey Nut]

48.6 acres hardly seems enough when the Bears have over 6 times that space at Arlington Heights.

There isn't that ambiance of building on the lakefront also. But Friends of the Park, who shot down George Lucas' planned museum, approximate project cost of over $700M, have vowed to go to the mat on a stadium on the South Lot. The Michael Reese site seems a bit small and there's already some type of development, 'Bronzeville', planned on it.

Bronzeville already has a ton of development planned for it, and I don't think you're going to get wealthy suburbanite football fans to hang out in that part of Chicago before and after the game. No matter how safe it may already be. The ancillary revenue opportunities would be extremely limited. It doesn't make financial sense for the McCaskey's to spend $2B of their money on a publicly owned stadium in that area. Certainly not as much as spending $2B in AH would.

[Otis Day]

I just cannot see them building on this site in Chicago. There will be a lot of restrictions. There will be less money making opportunities. They will be dealing with the city, the Friends of The Park and who knows who else. I think it is a ploy to get AH to move. The AH site is the McCaskey's/Bears. They can sell naming rights. They build how they want. They can develop and profit off of the surrounding land. No brainer to me.

[The Cooler King]

There isn't that ambiance of building on the lakefront also. But Friends of the Park, who shot down George Lucas' planned museum, approximate project cost of over $700M, have vowed to go to the mat on a stadium on the South Lot. The Michael Reese site seems a bit small and there's already some type of development, 'Bronzeville', planned on it.

Bronzeville already has a ton of development planned for it, and I don't think you're going to get wealthy suburbanite football fans to hang out in that part of Chicago before and after the game. No matter how safe it may already be. The ancillary revenue opportunities would be extremely limited. It doesn't make financial sense for the McCaskey's to spend $2B of their money on a publicly owned stadium in that area. Certainly not as much as spending $2B in AH would.

They absolutely would stick around if the entertainment amenities support it. Nearly every part of the city goes through cycles of blight to rebound. Anchored by a project of that size, done well (not a stadium surrounded by empty lots) and a widely appealing entertainment district can absolutely happen in Bronzeville.

Not expecting it though. But it's location isn't the primary issue I think.

[The Cooler King]

I just cannot see them building on this site in Chicago. There will be a lot of restrictions. There will be less money making opportunities. They will be dealing with the city, the Friends of The Park and who knows who else. I think it is a ploy to get AH to move. The AH site is the McCaskey's/Bears. They can sell naming rights. They build how they want. They can develop and profit off of the surrounding land. No brainer to me.

An investment near the heart of the 3rd largest city offers less money making opportunities? Sorry, but that's some Arlington tinted glasses. AH needs A LOT to be a money making venture. The issue with the city has always simply been what the best land plot would be. Obviously South Lot idea still has questions there, but if that hurdle is cleared there's clearly opportunity there.

[Bears Whiskey Nut]

48.6 acres hardly seems enough when the Bears have over 6 times that space at Arlington Heights.

US bank was built in just under 40 acres. So 40ish acres is fine if the surrounding area has a base of population and businesses, as well as transit to service it. AH would need to create that in its entirety (unless they were gonna go for Arrowhead, "suburban stadium surrounded by lots" feel).

That site sits close to Mccormick too - which is handy for big events. And the area around it could certainly be built up for private investment over time (and early buyers can get a good deal I'm sure)

The surrounding AH is packed with restaurants and bars. The Woodfield Mall area would be five minutes away, and the perfect area to run shuttle busses from. It's at the intersection of Hwy 14, 53, and I-90. There is a Metra train that runs parallel to the entire AH development site. It's a gold mine waiting to happen.

[The Cooler King]

That Metra track is not going to handle a significant amount of GameDay traffic. And a suburb to suburb travel is not broadly appealing. Most consumers will want AH to be a one stop shop, not a second leg suburb destination. Value consumers will find value in that, but that's not the main base that supports big $ dreams at a modern stadium development.

[The Cooler King]

Also that 5 minute quote is already basically cut in half. Which will then double again for GameDay traffic. And 10 minutes waiting on some shuttle. Etc. Etc. It won't be a quick and easy solution for GameDay.

Not saying there won't be a market for that sort of thing, but it's not convenient and those consumers will be the more difficult to monetize ones.

[Bears Whiskey Nut]

That Metra track is not going to handle a significant amount of GameDay traffic. And a suburb to suburb travel is not broadly appealing. Most consumers will want AH to be a one stop shop, not a second leg suburb destination. Value consumers will find value in that, but that's not the main base that supports big $ dreams at a modern stadium development.

I get the suburb to suburb argument. But there are so many nice areas surrounding AH, that a dozens cities like Shaumburg, Elgin, Buffalo Grove, Northbrook, Vernon Hills, etc. will all have shuttles and methods of parking and taking public transport to the game. The Metra track would be expanded, and a modern large train station would be built at the site. Get off the shuttle and walk into Chicago Bearsland. Bars, restaurants, sportsbooks, museums, green spaces. It's a marketing department's wet dream.

[wab]

That Metra track is not going to handle a significant amount of GameDay traffic. And a suburb to suburb travel is not broadly appealing. Most consumers will want AH to be a one stop shop, not a second leg suburb destination. Value consumers will find value in that, but that's not the main base that supports big $ dreams at a modern stadium development.

I get the suburb to suburb argument. But there are so many nice areas surrounding AH, that a dozens cities like Shaumburg, Elgin, Buffalo Grove, Northbrook, Vernon Hills, etc. will all have shuttles and methods of parking and taking public transport to the game. The Metra track would be expanded, and a modern large train station would be built at the site. Get off the shuttle and walk into Chicago Bearsland. Bars, restaurants, sportsbooks, museums, green spaces. It's a marketing department's wet dream.

Albeit to a smaller degree, it's exactly what Jerry Jones did here with The Star. They built an entire entertainment district around the Cowboys training facility and it's just making money faster than Jones can count it.

[The Cooler King]

It's a great dream, but the work to actually make that happen is a whole other story. There's incredible risk in a "build it and they will come" dream on a site like that. They can put whatever they want on some drawings, but there's always the risk it turns into something much less.

Comparively a city center has a much more captive market to draw from. You don't need to create a Disney World experience out of whole cloth.

[Bears Whiskey Nut]

I get the suburb to suburb argument. But there are so many nice areas surrounding AH, that a dozens cities like Shaumburg, Elgin, Buffalo Grove, Northbrook, Vernon Hills, etc. will all have shuttles and methods of parking and taking public transport to the game. The Metra track would be expanded, and a modern large train station would be built at the site. Get off the shuttle and walk into Chicago Bearsland. Bars, restaurants, sportsbooks, museums, green spaces. It's a marketing department's wet dream.

Albeit to a smaller degree, it's exactly what Jerry Jones did here with The Star. They built an entire entertainment district around the Cowboys training facility and it's just making money faster than Jones can count it.

There you go. Exactly. It could be called The Bears Den, or The Den District, or just The Den. Good God. I could be successful at marketing with this opportunity, and I suck at it. I hate marketing departments.

[Bears Whiskey Nut]

It's a great dream, but the work to actually make that happen is a whole other story. There's incredible risk in a "build it and they will come" dream on a site like that. They can put whatever they want on some drawings, but there's always the risk it turns into something much less.

Comparively a city center has a much more captive market to draw from. You don't need to create a Disney World experience out of whole cloth.

I think the one thing you are missing here is the relative income/socio-economic level of your "captive audience". Most of the people that live in the downtown Chicago area are under 40, and (for the most part) don't have the disposable income that you would need to take advantage of their participation. Whereas AH and surrounding cities are FLUSH in cash, and are looking for somewhere to spend it.

[The Cooler King]

It's a great dream, but the work to actually make that happen is a whole other story. There's incredible risk in a "build it and they will come" dream on a site like that. They can put whatever they want on some drawings, but there's always the risk it turns into something much less.

Comparively a city center has a much more captive market to draw from. You don't need to create a Disney World experience out of whole cloth.

I think the one thing you are missing here is the relative income/socio-economic level of your "captive audience". Most of the people that live in the downtown Chicago area are under 40, and (for the most part) don't have the disposable income that you would need to take advantage of their participation. Whereas AH and surrounding cities are FLUSH in cash, and are looking for somewhere to spend it.

AH and it's surrounding communities aren't big enough on their own. Chicago is still better centrally located to pull from a larger consumer base.

Neither option sits as a easy cash cow or terrible idea on its own right. Both are viable but with admittedly different appeals. But a city center location in a city like Chicago is never gonna be at a pure economic activity/potential disadvantage to a suburban location for a sports venue (or most things)

[wab]

I think the one thing you are missing here is the relative income/socio-economic level of your "captive audience". Most of the people that live in the downtown Chicago area are under 40, and (for the most part) don't have the disposable income that you would need to take advantage of their participation. Whereas AH and surrounding cities are FLUSH in cash, and are looking for somewhere to spend it.

AH and it's surrounding communities aren't big enough on their own. Chicago is still better centrally located to pull from a larger consumer base.

Neither option sits as a easy cash cow or terrible idea on its own right. Both are viable but with admittedly different appeals. But a city center location in a city like Chicago is never gonna be at a pure economic activity/potential disadvantage to a suburban location for a sports venue (or most things)

Eh, Frisco Texas isn't especially huge and people drive from the city to The Star in droves. I'm not saying it's a 1:1 comparison, but if Jerry Jones can make it work...

[The Cooler King]

AH and it's surrounding communities aren't big enough on their own. Chicago is still better centrally located to pull from a larger consumer base.

Neither option sits as a easy cash cow or terrible idea on its own right. Both are viable but with admittedly different appeals. But a city center location in a city like Chicago is never gonna be at a pure economic activity/potential disadvantage to a suburban location for a sports venue (or most things)

Eh, Frisco Texas isn't especially huge and people drive from the city to The Star in droves. I'm not saying it's a 1:1 comparison, but if Jerry Jones can make it work...

It's not a question of its potential. It's the cash cow / slam dunk type narrative. It could as easily be a loser as the next Jerry World.

[The Marshall Plan]

It's a great dream, but the work to actually make that happen is a whole other story. There's incredible risk in a "build it and they will come" dream on a site like that. They can put whatever they want on some drawings, but there's always the risk it turns into something much less.

Comparively a city center has a much more captive market to draw from. You don't need to create a Disney World experience out of whole cloth.

I think the one thing you are missing here is the relative income/socio-economic level of your "captive audience". Most of the people that live in the downtown Chicago area are under 40, and (for the most part) don't have the disposable income that you would need to take advantage of their participation. Whereas AH and surrounding cities are FLUSH in cash, and are looking for somewhere to spend it.

He’s missing more than one thing.

Apparently all that traffic on the Eisenhower and the Kennedy from suburbanites on game days is a giant coincidence.

Then anybody who thinks AH isn’t in a great location for a stadium either isn’t from here, an idiot, or both.

The Kennedy, 355 and 290 are all right there. So is 53.

The stadium would be surrounded on all four sides by transportation. That won’t happen in Chicago unless somebody is planning an amphibious landing from Indiana.

Numerous office complexes and then Woodfield Mall in the area to use as a staging ground for shuttle buses.

Quite frankly, people would feel safer in AH. Not everybody is down with the whole Chicago Scene.

Then it gives the Chicagoland area a third major stadium alongside United Center and Soldier Field. It would make that area a global attraction for major events.

So anybody that defends Chicago over the suburbs isn’t thinking.

[Bears Whiskey Nut]

Then it gives the Chicagoland area a third major stadium alongside United Center and Soldier Field. It would make that area a global attraction for major events.

So anybody that defends Chicago over the suburbs isn’t thinking.

I never thought of this angle, but you're absolutely right.

[The Marshall Plan]

Then it gives the Chicagoland area a third major stadium alongside United Center and Soldier Field. It would make that area a global attraction for major events.

So anybody that defends Chicago over the suburbs isn’t thinking.

I never thought of this angle, but you're absolutely right.

Imagine applying for the Summer Olympics or the World Cup. A World Baseball Classic would be simple. NCAA Tournament with a solid 3 stadiums: UC, AH, and Allstate.

All of these within an hour or so of each other for a large national or global event.

Soldier Field
United Center
AH - If this is a domed stadium you could purpose it for anything.
Wrigley Field
US Cellular Field
Allstate Arena
Several smaller baseball parks in the suburbs like for the Schaumburg Boomers

All of that within an hour of each other. Major expressways everywhere. O'Hare Airport right there. Midway an hour away. Plenty of hotels. Lots of office space for weekend parking and shuttle busing.

What couldn't Chicago host? The Winter Olympics? OK fine. I don't think we have the ski slopes for it. Anything else is doable.

Then Chicago itself. Right in the middle of the country. Perfect location.

[HisRoyalSweetness]

Imagine applying for the Summer Olympics or the World Cup...

It wouldn't make a difference for a World Cup. FIFA wouldn't risk having 4 sets of rival fans in one area. You think violence in Chicago is a problem as it is, imagine what it would be like with tens of thousands of soccer fans from 4 different countries engaging in pitch battles. Sadly that's what it's like with that sport.

A friend of a friend was one of the guys who got robbed and stabbed by Roma fans just last week. 3 stab wounds and 14 hours in hospital. He still made it to the game mind you.

[The Marshall Plan]

Imagine applying for the Summer Olympics or the World Cup...

It wouldn't make a difference for a World Cup. FIFA wouldn't risk having 4 sets of rival fans in one area. You think violence in Chicago is a problem as it is, imagine what it would be like with tens of thousands of soccer fans from 4 different countries engaging in pitch battles. Sadly that's what it's like with that sport.

A friend of a friend was one of the guys who got robbed and stabbed by Roma fans just last week. 3 stab wounds and 14 hours in hospital. He still made it to the game mind you.

We're used to soccer violence in Chicago.

It's called summer.

[Otis Day]

Friends Of The Park response to new interest by the Bears:

Friends of the Parks is proud to be known as defenders of our open, clear and free lakefront that serves public interests, not private enterprises. It is easy to take our 26 miles of a continuous parks and path system—one of our city’s crown jewels--for granted. But a look to other cities with waterfronts dominated by structures of industry or luxury is a testament to the vision and ceaseless, often politically unpopular, efforts of our forebears.

The fact that our lakefront has been protected from development is what makes it attractive to development. Without these protections we likely would not be discussing a new stadium on the lakefront as it would already be built up and privatized.

What we need right now is “open, clear and free” discourse driven by the public instead of private interests. Presently, our main reaction is frustration at the apparent urgency for the Bears to have a new plan in place after saying repeatedly they wanted to leave the city to develop an "entertainment district." It has been a mere three months since news broke that they were maybe having a serious change of heart.

Discussions about a project that will require significant public investment that could profoundly affect the literal and figurative landscape of Chicago and our neighborhoods should not be rushed like this. It is a curious contrast to how long it takes to approve and plan a new neighborhood park!

No one wants to see the Chicago Bears leave the city, but we are being asked to respond as if there are no other alternative sites available or even in the vicinity of the existing stadium. And while we appreciate that their announcement includes a nod to open space, we notice an important omission.

The Bears have repeatedly prioritized commercial development in conjunction with a new stadium—it’s part of what drove them to buy and raze land in Arlington Heights. Ted Phillips, former Bears president and CEO spoke of transforming the 326 acres into a “wonderful 365-day-a-year entertainment district.”

What new entertainment district are they imagining for the lakefront?

We are interested in conversations about other locations more suitable for development. We are Friends of the Parks, not just Friends of the Lakefront. Our work spans the city. We care about how investment and developments impact communities across Chicago, especially ones that have suffered historical disinvestment.

For example, if the Bears really want to make a generational impact while keeping lakefront views, the Michael Reese site potentially offers the best of both worlds--the development of a state-of-the-art stadium surrounded by a residential, business and entertainment district in a community steeped in rich, Black history. It also is accessible by bus, train, car, bike, scooter and walking without disrupting the lakefront.

FOTP has repeatedly been referred in news coverage as the key line of defense the Bears will have to break through to achieve their goal of a lakefront stadium. We have already started receiving angry emails about how we kept the Lucas Museum of Narrative Arts out of Chicago and that we better not cause the Bears to leave. We also get plenty of thank yous.

We did not force Lucas out of Chicago. He left because he would not consider alternatives to building on the lakefront, on land protected by the Public Trust Doctrine, in an area already slated to be developed into a park. We hope the Bears will show more vision and patience. Instead of picking up their ball and going home, we urge them to toss balls around with stakeholders to find a way to stay home in a location that preserves our open, clear and free lakefront and is a boon for neighborhood development.

Sometimes, FOTP is characterized as an organization that says no. We also say: “hold on, let’s talk about this, work to ensure that all stakeholders are at the table (or on the field), explore a range of options and be creative.” We look forward to courageous conversations ahead, including with the Chicago Bears.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/sports/ ... n/3380630/

[Bears Whiskey Nut]

Friends Of The Park response to new interest by the Bears:

Friends of the Parks is proud to be known as defenders of our open, clear and free lakefront that serves public interests, not private enterprises. It is easy to take our 26 miles of a continuous parks and path system—one of our city’s crown jewels--for granted. But a look to other cities with waterfronts dominated by structures of industry or luxury is a testament to the vision and ceaseless, often politically unpopular, efforts of our forebears.

The fact that our lakefront has been protected from development is what makes it attractive to development. Without these protections we likely would not be discussing a new stadium on the lakefront as it would already be built up and privatized.

What we need right now is “open, clear and free” discourse driven by the public instead of private interests. Presently, our main reaction is frustration at the apparent urgency for the Bears to have a new plan in place after saying repeatedly they wanted to leave the city to develop an "entertainment district." It has been a mere three months since news broke that they were maybe having a serious change of heart.

Discussions about a project that will require significant public investment that could profoundly affect the literal and figurative landscape of Chicago and our neighborhoods should not be rushed like this. It is a curious contrast to how long it takes to approve and plan a new neighborhood park!

No one wants to see the Chicago Bears leave the city, but we are being asked to respond as if there are no other alternative sites available or even in the vicinity of the existing stadium. And while we appreciate that their announcement includes a nod to open space, we notice an important omission.

The Bears have repeatedly prioritized commercial development in conjunction with a new stadium—it’s part of what drove them to buy and raze land in Arlington Heights. Ted Phillips, former Bears president and CEO spoke of transforming the 326 acres into a “wonderful 365-day-a-year entertainment district.”

What new entertainment district are they imagining for the lakefront?

We are interested in conversations about other locations more suitable for development. We are Friends of the Parks, not just Friends of the Lakefront. Our work spans the city. We care about how investment and developments impact communities across Chicago, especially ones that have suffered historical disinvestment.

For example, if the Bears really want to make a generational impact while keeping lakefront views, the Michael Reese site potentially offers the best of both worlds--the development of a state-of-the-art stadium surrounded by a residential, business and entertainment district in a community steeped in rich, Black history. It also is accessible by bus, train, car, bike, scooter and walking without disrupting the lakefront.

FOTP has repeatedly been referred in news coverage as the key line of defense the Bears will have to break through to achieve their goal of a lakefront stadium. We have already started receiving angry emails about how we kept the Lucas Museum of Narrative Arts out of Chicago and that we better not cause the Bears to leave. We also get plenty of thank yous.

We did not force Lucas out of Chicago. He left because he would not consider alternatives to building on the lakefront, on land protected by the Public Trust Doctrine, in an area already slated to be developed into a park. We hope the Bears will show more vision and patience. Instead of picking up their ball and going home, we urge them to toss balls around with stakeholders to find a way to stay home in a location that preserves our open, clear and free lakefront and is a boon for neighborhood development.

Sometimes, FOTP is characterized as an organization that says no. We also say: “hold on, let’s talk about this, work to ensure that all stakeholders are at the table (or on the field), explore a range of options and be creative.” We look forward to courageous conversations ahead, including with the Chicago Bears.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/sports/ ... n/3380630/

Translation: We're going to make your life a red tape/legal nightmare, we will make this a political and public spectacle in order to get our way, and you won't end up with anything near what you wanted.

[Otis Day]

I agree. I am of the opinion that this is just a strategic move by the Bears. AH Mayor said they were still in contact with Bears about their site.

[Ditka’s dictaphone]

I'm just an outta towner fan waiting to find out if it's still gonna be the Chicago Bears, the Arlington Heights Bears, the Napervile Bears or some other suburb whose yet to chime in. A lakefront stadium would be great if they can pull it off.

There is a town in Illinois named Boody.

I vote that we move the Bears there.

The Boody Bears hss a nice ring to it.

It's only a 2.75 hour drive from Chicago which isn't that far off from the commute time it takes to get from the suburbs to downtown.

As part of my research for this post I was made aware that there is also a town named Bush.

Bush Bears actually sounds much better.

I would like to help redesign the logo if they become the Bush Bears.

How about they build 2 stadiums in each of these towns and call ourselves the :

Boody Bush Bears

[Hoog]

I am really lost here. Can someone in Chicago please tell me if Arlington is being greedy assholes and the Bears are done with them OR are the Bears playing them till they get what they want OR do they really want to stay downtown and will now need to deal with those aholes that don't want a stadium? This is all so F'd up, its hard to follow.

[The Cooler King]

I am really lost here. Can someone in Chicago please tell me if Arlington is being greedy assholes and the Bears are done with them OR are the Bears playing them till they get what they want OR do they really want to stay downtown and will now need to deal with those aholes that don't want a stadium? This is all so F'd up, its hard to follow.

I don't think anyone outside HH really knows the preferred solution. I'd guess both are still on table.

[Bears Whiskey Nut]

I am really lost here. Can someone in Chicago please tell me if Arlington is being greedy assholes and the Bears are done with them OR are the Bears playing them till they get what they want OR do they really want to stay downtown and will now need to deal with those aholes that don't want a stadium? This is all so F'd up, its hard to follow.

It's power politics. There are a lot of residents in AH that are opposed to the stadium. Cook County is (in the Bears mind) over assessing the value of the land, and forcing the Bears to cough up an extra $15M, which is chump change in this scenario. My guess is that the Bears are looking for some kind of local tax abatement or a lift on zoning restrictions in order to move the project forward. There will also need to be a lot of infrastructure modernization that needs to go on to accommodate the plans for the new site, and that is going to fall on AH. The Bears are entertaining the idea of staying on the waterfront to try and get AH to play ball. The mayor, treasurer, etc know what a tax revenue boon this will be for the city. It's just that they are going to need the citizens and the city council to play ball. That's my guess anyway.

[The Marshall Plan]

I am really lost here. Can someone in Chicago please tell me if Arlington is being greedy assholes and the Bears are done with them OR are the Bears playing them till they get what they want OR do they really want to stay downtown and will now need to deal with those aholes that don't want a stadium? This is all so F'd up, its hard to follow.

It's power politics. There are a lot of residents in AH that are opposed to the stadium. Cook County is (in the Bears mind) over assessing the value of the land, and forcing the Bears to cough up an extra $15M, which is chump change in this scenario. My guess is that the Bears are looking for some kind of local tax abatement or a lift on zoning restrictions in order to move the project forward. There will also need to be a lot of infrastructure modernization that needs to go on to accommodate the plans for the new site, and that is going to fall on AH. The Bears are entertaining the idea of staying on the waterfront to try and get AH to play ball. The mayor, treasurer, etc know what a tax revenue boon this will be for the city. It's just that they are going to need the citizens and the city council to play ball. That's my guess anyway.

Warren should whip out his walnuts and start looking at sites in NW Indiana.

[Hero]

Do you know what this sounds like to me?

Arlington Heights stadium is Caleb Williams
Chicago Lakefront stadium is Justin Fields