Will the McCaskeys sell the Bears?

[Bertz]

soldier field isn't just regular bad to get to. it's extra bad as compared to how bad it already is to get into stadiums.

 

i've been to plenty of events at plenty of venues and soldier field is the only one i bitch about this with.

Agreed. I think it was one of the Hawks Cup rallies that I'm still scarred over. I lived in walking difference to Soldier Field so wasn't using public transit or car, and getting out of the stadium vicinity was the worst stadium experience I've ever had. But all the other times I've been, including for Soccer games which aren't as packed as a Bears game and it just always seems to suck.

 

Edit- and as much as getting on the redline after a Cubs game can also be soul-crushingly miserable, there's at least alternatives because you're in the middle of a neighborhood with Bars and restaurants. SF doesn't offer any alternative like that.

 

Yeah, Soldier Field and the Museum Campus are a pain in the ass to get to even when there's not a Bears game. Driving sucks because it's downtown. But then it's like the one place downtown that's a public transit desert. Mile for mile it might be the worst place in the city to try and get to, even on non game days.

[David]

soldier field isn't just regular bad to get to. it's extra bad as compared to how bad it already is to get into stadiums.

 

i've been to plenty of events at plenty of venues and soldier field is the only one i bitch about this with.

Agreed. I think it was one of the Hawks Cup rallies that I'm still scarred over. I lived in walking difference to Soldier Field so wasn't using public transit or car, and getting out of the stadium vicinity was the worst stadium experience I've ever had. But all the other times I've been, including for Soccer games which aren't as packed as a Bears game and it just always seems to suck.

 

Edit- and as much as getting on the redline after a Cubs game can also be soul-crushingly miserable, there's at least alternatives because you're in the middle of a neighborhood with Bars and restaurants. SF doesn't offer any alternative like that.

 

Yeah, Soldier Field and the Museum Campus are a pain in the ass to get to even when there's not a Bears game. Driving sucks because it's downtown. But then it's like the one place downtown that's a public transit desert. Mile for mile it might be the worst place in the city to try and get to, even on non game days.

 

100% spot on

 

and dealing with all that after drinking all day/night (instead of just having places to go hang out a block away like at wrigley) is the definition of not fun.

[d_money]

Transit normally helps, but I think the transit isn't quite close enough (at least the El stops) and then you're land locked with the lake which lessens the exit paths.

Somewhat related, Ravinia has a train stop right outside the venue and after a show - it is a complete nightmare to jump the train. Parking (travel by bus to the lots) is a rodeo as well. Point is - even if there is mass transit, as Tim pointed out - getting a large number of people to leave at the same time is gonna be a nightmare with or w/o mass transit.

[UMFan83]

Transit normally helps, but I think the transit isn't quite close enough (at least the El stops) and then you're land locked with the lake which lessens the exit paths.

Somewhat related, Ravinia has a train stop right outside the venue and after a show - it is a complete nightmare to jump the train. Parking (travel by bus to the lots) is a rodeo as well. Point is - even if there is mass transit, as Tim pointed out - getting a large number of people to leave at the same time is gonna be a nightmare with or w/o mass transit.

 

Right, people point out that Arlington Park has its own Metra stop and use it as a reason why a stadium in Arlington Heights would be easy to get to. It's one Metra stop on one Metra line. While there are cross-suburb highways like 355 and 294, by and large Chicago's infrastructure is built to get people to and from the city. Someone in like Tinley Park doesnt care about the Metra, they care about having to switch highways 3-4 times and then drive on surface streets not designed to send 60,000 people into a concentrated area. 53 is 3 lanes without any shoulders in the area near Arlington Park exit, and I don't think taking Rand or Northwest Highway is going to be any better.

[WrigleyField 22]

Transit normally helps, but I think the transit isn't quite close enough (at least the El stops) and then you're land locked with the lake which lessens the exit paths.

Somewhat related, Ravinia has a train stop right outside the venue and after a show - it is a complete nightmare to jump the train. Parking (travel by bus to the lots) is a rodeo as well. Point is - even if there is mass transit, as Tim pointed out - getting a large number of people to leave at the same time is gonna be a nightmare with or w/o mass transit.

 

Right, people point out that Arlington Park has its own Metra stop and use it as a reason why a stadium in Arlington Heights would be easy to get to. It's one Metra stop on one Metra line. While there are cross-suburb highways like 355 and 294, by and large Chicago's infrastructure is built to get people to and from the city. Someone in like Tinley Park doesnt care about the Metra, they care about having to switch highways 3-4 times and then drive on surface streets not designed to send 60,000 people into a concentrated area. 53 is 3 lanes without any shoulders in the area near Arlington Park exit, and I don't think taking Rand or Northwest Highway is going to be any better.

Of course the local roads would have to be looked at a site like Arlington or wherever. And definitely a move to Arlington would be less convenient for certain south suburbs people.

 

But as far as transit to SF goes, the one 18th street Metra stop is the only one that's all that convenient. Roosevelt is at least 20 minutes, but from my experience with a Gameday crowd its probably closer to double that. McCormick Green is about the same. Not sure how bused are, but I can't imagine theyre a great option.

 

As to the hypothetical Tinley park person.

It's currently something like 80 to 57 to 94 to LSD. To Arlington is 80 to 355 to 290 to Euclid. So even though it's further the number of HW thing isn't really an accurate complaint. Although theres obviously certain areas that may end up relevant. But yea, there would be some relative winners and losers. But SF is kind of a centrally loser spot for almost everyone, not an actual good spot.

[WrigleyField 22]

Transit normally helps, but I think the transit isn't quite close enough (at least the El stops) and then you're land locked with the lake which lessens the exit paths.

Somewhat related, Ravinia has a train stop right outside the venue and after a show - it is a complete nightmare to jump the train. Parking (travel by bus to the lots) is a rodeo as well. Point is - even if there is mass transit, as Tim pointed out - getting a large number of people to leave at the same time is gonna be a nightmare with or w/o mass transit.

I don't think anyone would claim its possible to have a 50k + stadium and not have congestion issues. It's of course its not going to be a trip to the grocery store. But touting SFs transit as a positive is laughable compared to the other stadiums in the city. It's only positive in the sense there are multiple options that all kind of suck.

[SouthSideRyan]

soldier field isn't just regular bad to get to. it's extra bad as compared to how bad it already is to get into stadiums.

 

i've been to plenty of events at plenty of venues and soldier field is the only one i bitch about this with.

 

I can walk there

[Brian]

oh, this is a real thing.

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[UMFan83]

oh, this is a real thing.

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

Holy horsefeathers

[Tryptamine]

I'm ok with anything where I have one less reason to go downtown, even if traffic is going to be a nightmare.

[Brian707]

:clapping:

 

Another positive is the huge parking area at the track. I think in its heyday Arlington probably had 30K in attendance. So double that for a Bears game. I don't think the traffic issue will be as bad as people make it out to be. Can't be any worse than the hassle SF is now. Tired of parking a 30 minute walk away, and doing the same after the game usually pissed off and drunk after a Bears loss.

[minnesotacubsfan]

:clapping:

 

Another positive is the huge parking area at the track. I think in its heyday Arlington probably had 30K in attendance. So double that for a Bears game. I don't think the traffic issue will be as bad as people make it out to be. Can't be any worse than the hassle SF is now. Tired of parking a 30 minute walk away, and doing the same after the game usually pissed off and drunk after a Bears loss.

 

If they level the raceway and build a stadium, they will redesign and optimize the parking and the existing parking wont matter.

 

the direct adjacency to hwy 53 would very likely mean traffic getting in and out will be muuch smoother then SF

 

I do wonder if this is a chess move with the Chicago Parks district

[UMFan83]

So the Park District is likely to force them to stick to their 2033 lease, will be interesting to see their reaction if they actually do complete this purchase.

 

But outside of the lease, what else can the city do to keep them in Chicago? I can't see there being another viable site outside of like the edge of town where a giant stadium would fit, so they would have to commit to funds to rebuild Soldier Field from ground up if they wanted to keep the Bears. Even then, my guess is the Bears want to own their stadium and not lease it from the Park District.

[Brian]

this is from a Sun-Times article about it

 

The organization doesn’t consider that lease to be a barrier, a source said, because it could negotiate a buyout and construction on a new facility would take years anyway.

 

I've never purchased land let alone of this magnitude, but submitting a bid feels like more than posturing to me.

[minnesotacubsfan]

this is from a Sun-Times article about it

 

The organization doesn’t consider that lease to be a barrier, a source said, because it could negotiate a buyout and construction on a new facility would take years anyway.

 

I've never purchased land let alone of this magnitude, but submitting a bid feels like more than posturing to me.

 

it really depends on how much they bid and if it is a sealed bid. But right now, it is JUST a bid and not intent to buy, fwiu

 

 

i'd love to see a new Bears stadium someplace. I happen to know an architect who specializes in nfl stadiums. might have to hit them up for a job

 

:)

Edited June 17, 2021 by minnesotacubsfan

[jersey cubs fan]

this is from a Sun-Times article about it

 

The organization doesn’t consider that lease to be a barrier, a source said, because it could negotiate a buyout and construction on a new facility would take years anyway.

 

I've never purchased land let alone of this magnitude, but submitting a bid feels like more than posturing to me.

Announcing that you have made a bid is absolutely posturing. It could lead to something, but generally speaking organizations do not announce their intentions to pay for transparency reasons.

[Outshined_One]

So the Park District is likely to force them to stick to their 2033 lease, will be interesting to see their reaction if they actually do complete this purchase.

 

I think Chicago would take the money and run if the Bears made an offer to buy out the lease in a single lump sum payment at 75% of what remains owed between now and 2033.

 

The only question would be what Chicago does with Soldier Field if the Bears leave.

[Old Style]

I guess I'm a meathead because I hate the idea of the Bears not playing in Chicago. Then again, I hate going to NFL games in person and I know it's a pain in the ass to get to Soldier Field so I understand why fans would be happy about it. And of course I get why the team would want to move.

[UMFan83]

So the Park District is likely to force them to stick to their 2033 lease, will be interesting to see their reaction if they actually do complete this purchase.

 

I think Chicago would take the money and run if the Bears made an offer to buy out the lease in a single lump sum payment at 75% of what remains owed between now and 2033.

 

The only question would be what Chicago does with Soldier Field if the Bears leave.

 

Well the Fire have a lease there now, and its still good for those large summer concerts, so they could easily keep the venue open and maybe do a remodel to make it more soccer/concert friendly.

 

Fake Edit: Nevermind, the Fire's lease is only for 3 years so it wouldn't be difficult to boot them if they wanted to tear it down.

[d_money]

So the Park District is likely to force them to stick to their 2033 lease, will be interesting to see their reaction if they actually do complete this purchase.

 

I think Chicago would take the money and run if the Bears made an offer to buy out the lease in a single lump sum payment at 75% of what remains owed between now and 2033.

 

The only question would be what Chicago does with Soldier Field if the Bears leave.

 

Well the Fire have a lease there now, and its still good for those large summer concerts, so they could easily keep the venue open and maybe do a remodel to make it more soccer/concert friendly.

 

Fake Edit: Nevermind, the Fire's lease is only for 3 years so it wouldn't be difficult to boot them if they wanted to tear it down.

Don’t the colonnades have landmark status? If so, they (whoever that is) will have legal trouble tearing it down.

[UMFan83]

 

I think Chicago would take the money and run if the Bears made an offer to buy out the lease in a single lump sum payment at 75% of what remains owed between now and 2033.

 

The only question would be what Chicago does with Soldier Field if the Bears leave.

 

Well the Fire have a lease there now, and its still good for those large summer concerts, so they could easily keep the venue open and maybe do a remodel to make it more soccer/concert friendly.

 

Fake Edit: Nevermind, the Fire's lease is only for 3 years so it wouldn't be difficult to boot them if they wanted to tear it down.

Don’t the colonnades have landmark status? If so, they (whoever that is) will have legal trouble tearing it down.

 

I'm pretty sure they lost that status after the renovation because of how poorly the renovation preserved those colonnades

 

Edit: here an article about losing landmark status:

 

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/644198/how-national-historic-landmarks-lose-nps-status

 

Sometimes, extensive remodeling can unintentionally strip a property of its defining historical features. Chicago’s Grant Park Stadium (better known as Soldier Field) lost its designation in 2006 after undergoing renovations to make it a more modern NFL stadium. Since its Doric columns and other design elements are now overshadowed by the bowl, the stadium is no longer considered historically significant.

[WrigleyField 22]

this is from a Sun-Times article about it

 

The organization doesn’t consider that lease to be a barrier, a source said, because it could negotiate a buyout and construction on a new facility would take years anyway.

 

I've never purchased land let alone of this magnitude, but submitting a bid feels like more than posturing to me.

Announcing that you have made a bid is absolutely posturing. It could lead to something, but generally speaking organizations do not announce their intentions to pay for transparency reasons.

Any bid is likely to come with tons of contingencies. In the Bears case, financing, almost certainly of significant public source, is a huge one.

 

So these bids are more outlines. Followed by tons of due diligence and finalizing financing.

[d_money]

 

Well the Fire have a lease there now, and its still good for those large summer concerts, so they could easily keep the venue open and maybe do a remodel to make it more soccer/concert friendly.

 

Fake Edit: Nevermind, the Fire's lease is only for 3 years so it wouldn't be difficult to boot them if they wanted to tear it down.

Don’t the colonnades have landmark status? If so, they (whoever that is) will have legal trouble tearing it down.

 

I'm pretty sure they lost that status after the renovation because of how poorly the renovation preserved those colonnades

 

Edit: here an article about losing landmark status:

 

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/644198/how-national-historic-landmarks-lose-nps-status

 

Sometimes, extensive remodeling can unintentionally strip a property of its defining historical features. Chicago’s Grant Park Stadium (better known as Soldier Field) lost its designation in 2006 after undergoing renovations to make it a more modern NFL stadium. Since its Doric columns and other design elements are now overshadowed by the bowl, the stadium is no longer considered historically significant.

IIRC during the remodel they did everything they could to incorporate the colonnades to maintain the landmark status.

 

End result - a shitty looking structure, so bad that it lost the status they tried so hard to maintain. Also - they ended up with the smallest stadium seat capacity in the NFL.

[UMFan83]

Am I right in assuming that they would only consider doing this if they had the stadium at least partially publicly financed? I would love to see the Ricketts family flip their horsefeathers if the Bears got public money for their stadium 20 years after the public paid for the Soldier Field renovations while PTR couldn't get a dime to fix up Wrigley.

[minnesotacubsfan]

Don’t the colonnades have landmark status? If so, they (whoever that is) will have legal trouble tearing it down.

 

I'm pretty sure they lost that status after the renovation because of how poorly the renovation preserved those colonnades

 

Edit: here an article about losing landmark status:

 

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/644198/how-national-historic-landmarks-lose-nps-status

 

Sometimes, extensive remodeling can unintentionally strip a property of its defining historical features. Chicago’s Grant Park Stadium (better known as Soldier Field) lost its designation in 2006 after undergoing renovations to make it a more modern NFL stadium. Since its Doric columns and other design elements are now overshadowed by the bowl, the stadium is no longer considered historically significant.

IIRC during the remodel they did everything they could to incorporate the colonnades to maintain the landmark status.

 

End result - a horsefeathers looking structure, so bad that it lost the status they tried so hard to maintain. Also - they ended up with the smallest stadium seat capacity in the NFL.

 

They didnt do "everything they could", they gave it the ol' college try. And its not a bad look overall.

 

that being said, now that the landmark status is gone, they can pretty much do anything they want with the building.