Make Fun of the Bears' Stadium Woes in Here

[CubinNY]

I think they are trying to leverage things, but they don't have any leverage. 

[WrigleyField 22]

It's just a weird game, because they don't really need to leverage AH against Chicago. They only need to leverage the state against itself.  It's not like AH has the ability to back something like a bond offering the way the city can with the hotel tax (at least in theory).  Yea they need to get into the nitty gritty of a property tax assessment deal, but they really can't do that without a more concrete plan that provides some benchmarks that the taxing municipalities can set a development offer upon.

 

It's either entirely for optics, they actually want to stay in the city, or some 4D chess operating I can't comprehend.

[Outshined_One]

5 hours ago, Old Style said:

Am I the only one that thinks they never really wanted this plan? They’re trying to play a game of chicken with Arlington Heights IMO. Then again I haven’t followed this closely at all so maybe this is incredibly stupid. Lol. 

It's possible they're talking out of both sides of their mouths with this one.  If the new stadium is built in Chicago and is government-owned, the Bears won't have to worry about fluctuating real estate taxes and can likely exert enough control over concessions, ticket sales, etc. to make it more profitable than if the Bears built in AH.  They also got Brandon Johnson to stake his political career on the damn thing, so that at least creates leverage both with Chicago and with AH.

I still think this ends with a new stadium going up in AH, but who the hell knows at this point?

[SouthSideRyan]

On 4/26/2024 at 6:43 PM, minnesotacubsfan said:

ok. Lets replace the Stones with Taylor Swift. would her concerts be "dificult" to imagine in a football stadium or a baseball stadium?

What? They're both playing/played Soldier Field.

[minnesotacubsfan]

2 hours ago, SouthSideRyan said:

What? They're both playing/played Soldier Field.

yea, thats my point; that a football stadium is more likely to have those concerts than a baseball stadium, and therefor that idea would be part of an argument to claim that SF should get public funding while the WS stadium cant use that as part of an argument for public funding as easily

[jersey cubs fan]

1 hour ago, minnesotacubsfan said:

yea, thats my point; that a football stadium is more likely to have those concerts than a baseball stadium, and therefor that idea would be part of an argument to claim that SF should get public funding while the WS stadium cant use that as part of an argument for public funding as easily

But the stadium that holds those events already exists. 

[BigbadB]

18 hours ago, jersey cubs fan said:

But the stadium that holds those events already exists. 

You aren't thinking about all those times the Stones and Taylor Swift are scheduled in Chicago on the same day.

[UMFan83]

 

I know it says that the main focus is still Chicago but I believe either: 1) AH has always been the plan and Chicago was leverage or 2) even if Chicago is the preferred option, AH is still the most likely option.

[minnesotacubsfan]

The Bears could end up 

1) building new schools and fields for Arlington heights or

2) building new playing fields for CSD

 

It wouldn’t surprise me to see the later. It’s a bigger PR campaign 

 

[WrigleyField 22]

He 100% has no idea what he's doing, right?

 

 

[mul21]

1 minute ago, WrigleyField 22 said:

He 100% has no idea what he's doing, right?

 

 

If he does, he's sure doing a great job making it look like he doesn't.

[BigSlick]

You know, after going to the game on Sunday, I came away with a much greater appreciation for the Soldier Field experience. It's a really good stadium for watching football. They really horsefeathered up in 2002 making it so small (how the hell did they not build a stadium at least 20,000 seats bigger) plus, probably the biggest thing is making access to the stadium easier. It's so goddamn hard to get to the stupid field. They need to build a CTA extension or something there. It's unacceptable. 

I don't feel any urgency over getting a new field, I guess they do because they want $$$, but why is that my problem. 

[Tryptamine]

9 minutes ago, BigSlick said:

You know, after going to the game on Sunday, I came away with a much greater appreciation for the Soldier Field experience. It's a really good stadium for watching football. They really horsefeathered up in 2002 making it so small (how the hell did they not build a stadium at least 20,000 seats bigger) plus, probably the biggest thing is making access to the stadium easier. It's so goddamn hard to get to the stupid field. They need to build a CTA extension or something there. It's unacceptable. 

I don't feel any urgency over getting a new field, I guess they do because they want $$$, but why is that my problem. 

My issue with the Bear experience, which most certainly wouldn't be helped by a new stadium, is that if you're a family of 4 going to see one Bear game, you're in probably $1000 by the time you buy tickets and get to the game whether it's train/cta or parking. Then after you figure food/drink/memorabilia you're at least $1250 in . Even a Cub game is cheap comparatively. 

[bddavidson]

7 minutes ago, BigSlick said:

You know, after going to the game on Sunday, I came away with a much greater appreciation for the Soldier Field experience. It's a really good stadium for watching football. They really horsefeathered up in 2002 making it so small (how the hell did they not build a stadium at least 20,000 seats bigger) plus, probably the biggest thing is making access to the stadium easier. It's so goddamn hard to get to the stupid field. They need to build a CTA extension or something there. It's unacceptable. 

I don't feel any urgency over getting a new field, I guess they do because they want $$$, but why is that my problem. 

The only issue I have ever is leaving the stadium to get to Roosevelt CTA.  That walk bottlenecks getting around the Field Museum and never really opens up.  Inside its perfectly fine.

[UMFan83]

2 minutes ago, BigSlick said:

You know, after going to the game on Sunday, I came away with a much greater appreciation for the Soldier Field experience. It's a really good stadium for watching football. They really horsefeathered up in 2002 making it so small (how the hell did they not build a stadium at least 20,000 seats bigger) plus, probably the biggest thing is making access to the stadium easier. It's so goddamn hard to get to the stupid field. They need to build a CTA extension or something there. It's unacceptable. 

I don't feel any urgency over getting a new field, I guess they do because they want $$$, but why is that my problem. 

I want the big events in Chicago.  Super Bowl, Final Four, Wrestlemania, Big Ten championship game.  I doubt I would attend any of those events but for civic pride.  Stop giving all that horsefeathers to Indy or Minny.  Otherwise Soldier Field is whatever.  There's nothing detestable about it outside of getting there but I think we could do a lot better.

[BigSlick]

5 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

My issue with the Bear experience, which most certainly wouldn't be helped by a new stadium, is that if you're a family of 4 going to see one Bear game, you're in probably $1000 by the time you buy tickets and get to the game whether it's train/cta or parking. Then after you figure food/drink/memorabilia you're at least $1250 in . Even a Cub game is cheap comparatively. 

Sadly I’m not sure a newer, bigger stadium will alleviate that at all. 

[jersey cubs fan]

8 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

My issue with the Bear experience, which most certainly wouldn't be helped by a new stadium, is that if you're a family of 4 going to see one Bear game, you're in probably $1000 by the time you buy tickets and get to the game whether it's train/cta or parking. Then after you figure food/drink/memorabilia you're at least $1250 in . Even a Cub game is cheap comparatively. 

Welcome to NFL football 

[Tryptamine]

10 minutes ago, BigSlick said:

Sadly I’m not sure a newer, bigger stadium will alleviate that at all. 

The only thing it helps is not having to drive into Chicago.

[Brian707]

I have had season tickets since 2011. Its fine driving in to downtown for the game, the walk in sucks, the walk out sucks, the traffic home sucks, The in game experience is totally fine to very good. I hate having to park 1.3 miles away unless I want to drop $150 on parking or take the train in. Just move to Arlington Heights. 

Signed some schmuck from the NW suburbs.

[WrigleyField 22]

53 minutes ago, BigSlick said:

You know, after going to the game on Sunday, I came away with a much greater appreciation for the Soldier Field experience. It's a really good stadium for watching football. They really horsefeathered up in 2002 making it so small (how the hell did they not build a stadium at least 20,000 seats bigger) plus, probably the biggest thing is making access to the stadium easier. It's so goddamn hard to get to the stupid field. They need to build a CTA extension or something there. It's unacceptable. 

I don't feel any urgency over getting a new field, I guess they do because they want $$$, but why is that my problem. 

The sight lines and intimate experience are definitely a plus for once you're inside the stadium.  If they weren't having to accommodate the collanades they probably could have done a better job with concourse, exits, and such. But you can't add 20k seats and keep what's good about it currently.

 

It's still a really terrible site until they come up with a solution to make the Metra tracks as the main public transit source into the stadium area  including connecting the other nearby transit options in a low hassle way.  Roosevelt stop just isn't very close or convenient at the end of the day (if it was a straight shot maybe, but it can't be). Obviously by car the site will never be good, which would be fine if the public transit wasn't pretty meh too.  And yea, most stadiums suffer from congestion, but SF has always seemed particularly weak in that department, even for less dense events.

Edited October 9, 2024 by WrigleyField 22

[WrigleyField 22]

Everything would have just been better if they had built the McDome in the mid 90s.  It probably would have been a ****** stadium, but the site would be good and they could have put the eventual rebuild on the same site.  But McCaskeys wanted bear weather or whatever.

[Brian707]

21 hours ago, WrigleyField 22 said:

Everything would have just been better if they had built the McDome in the mid 90s.  It probably would have been a ****** stadium, but the site would be good and they could have put the eventual rebuild on the same site.  But McCaskeys wanted bear weather or whatever.

Wasnt that supposed to be built in Gary Indiana? I remember Daley II saying if they move there they have to be called the Gary Bears

[BigSlick]

God I would hate a dome for the Bears. I don't mind the idea of a retractable roof though. It would mean no more snow games, but those are a novelty. Those outdoor games when the weather is beautiful are amazing. (And, in a good-and-also-bad way, I think Chicago will have a lot more warm weather days into the future during the football season than not given where climate change is going). 

[WrigleyField 22]

6 minutes ago, Brian707 said:

Wasnt that supposed to be built in Gary Indiana? I remember Daley II saying if they move there they have to be called the Gary Bears

Nah that was a separate idea (if I'm remembering) McDome was the nickname of the proposal to put it on/near McCormick site. But wherever that proposal was has since been developed I think.

[WrigleyField 22]

Didn't the Gary idea come with the cheesiest 90s development name ever.  Like SportsWorldPlex or something lame?