Bears Stadium news

[Banedon]

I wanted to keep this separate from our other Bears thread, but this seems pretty significant.

Illinois Playbook - POLITICO
 

Quote

 

STADIUM TALKS: State lawmakers remain in active discussions with the Chicago Bears about the team’s stadium future, state Rep. Kam Buckner told your Playbook host in a live interview at The Hideout on Monday night.

More transparency: “We have had a number of face-to-face meetings,” Buckner said. “I do think they’re becoming more transparent and more forthcoming. We’re not there yet, but we’re getting there.”

About the state’s role: Buckner, a Chicago Democrat and former college football player, said the Bears’ search for a new stadium — whether it’s in Chicago or Arlington Heights — continues to raise questions about the state’s role and its priorities.

Taxpayer burden: “Even if they do go to Arlington Heights, what I don’t want is the people of Chicago to be left high and dry holding the bag,” Buckner said. “We owe $532 million on the last Soldier Field renovation from 20 years ago. That’s not small change.”

Funding scrutiny: The Bears have recently said they would privately finance the stadium itself, but Buckner said the broader package, including infrastructure and tax treatment, still warrants scrutiny.

Giving a hat-tip: “I’m happy now that they are saying that they’re going to fund the whole actual stadium portion privately. That’s the right thing to do,” he said. “Kudos.”

Still, Buckner pushed back on comparisons between stadium funding and other state-backed investments, such as a PsiQuantum campus or public transit. Those are used “every single day by the people who live in an area,” Buckner said. “The Bears play eight home games a year and hopefully two or three playoff games a year. That does not equal out to something that is extremely pivotal in the economic landscape for a city or state.”

Shiny objects: He added that lawmakers have grown wary of deals driven more by hype than hard analysis. “We’ve got this nasty appetite in this city, in this state, and places around the country to go chase the shining thing, right, without putting real accountability behind it,” Buckner said. “My thing always is, show your work.”

Infrastructure possibilities: Buckner said infrastructure funding itself is not off the table, but he criticized the Bears’ approach to seeking it. “It’s not that we shouldn’t have a conversation around infrastructure,” he said, adding the team “missed some opportunities” by not being “more forthcoming sooner.”

Despite the criticism, Buckner said negotiations remain alive heading into the spring legislative session. “Anything can happen,” he said. “Literally anything can happen.”

 

[mul21]

That feels a bit disingenuous to say that the facilities/transportation will only be used 10 times a year for Bears games when we know that a new Bears stadium would be a very popular place for concerts and other similar events.  I do appreciate the caution being used here so as not to stick the taxpayers with the bill for something that only benefits the Bears owners.

[BigSlick]

This is certainly encouraging. Funny how things have switched from the majority leader saying "it's insulting to even TALK about Bears stadium stuff" to this. 

I'm ok with them putting some money behind infrastructure and some tax breaks (though certainly not entire giveaways). The fact that the Bears supposedly can finance the stadium itself is news to me. I wonder what's changed. 

[WrigleyField 22]

26 minutes ago, mul21 said:

That feels a bit disingenuous to say that the facilities/transportation will only be used 10 times a year for Bears games when we know that a new Bears stadium would be a very popular place for concerts and other similar events.  I do appreciate the caution being used here so as not to stick the taxpayers with the bill for something that only benefits the Bears owners.

Yea but even if it's hosting 156 events (3× a week fully booked), it's less consistent use, and higher max volume need than something like a business or retail development. 

 

People will trash on politicians who are doing what appears to be absolute bare minimum due diligence on spending. 

[Banedon]

32 minutes ago, BigSlick said:

The fact that the Bears supposedly can finance the stadium itself is news to me. I wonder what's changed. 

Yep, that's the big question isn't it?

[mul21]

41 minutes ago, BigSlick said:

This is certainly encouraging. Funny how things have switched from the majority leader saying "it's insulting to even TALK about Bears stadium stuff" to this. 

I'm ok with them putting some money behind infrastructure and some tax breaks (though certainly not entire giveaways). The fact that the Bears supposedly can finance the stadium itself is news to me. I wonder what's changed. 

The NFL seems to be able to bend its rules as they see fit to make things like this work.  It feels like it's in their best interest to keep the Bears in "Chicago" so I would bet they help a lot more than typical with financing if need be.

[minnesotacubsfan]

Building a stadium takes a lot of involvement beyond just the stadium itself. I’ve thought for awhile now that the Bears have been saying they would pay for the stadium. It’s all the work around the stadium they don’t want to pay for, that they need the state and local gvt to pick up. If they had developed this entirely privately, they would need a private party to pick up the outlying pieces and probably infrastructure. But since that looks unlikely (development in general is down and interest rates are up) a public partner really is their only other option.

[jersey cubs fan]

Soldier field is still going to get the big outdoor concerts and other stuff, and wrigley field already competes for shows. A new stadium in Arlington heights is going to sit vacant for the vast majority of the year. 
 

MetLife has two teams playing there and you can drive by most days without anything going on. It doesn’t have anything like soldier field to compete with 

[minnesotacubsfan]

3 hours ago, jersey cubs fan said:

Soldier field is still going to get the big outdoor concerts and other stuff, and wrigley field already competes for shows. A new stadium in Arlington heights is going to sit vacant for the vast majority of the year. 
 

MetLife has two teams playing there and you can drive by most days without anything going on. It doesn’t have anything like soldier field to compete with 

I’d tend to agree. The anomaly is Wrigley. Baseball fields don’t seem to be as adaptable to concerts, so that takes out stadiums like Yankee, that stupid hell hole the metropolitans play in, and TMobile. Quest has the concerts in Seattle and the two are sitting right next to each other.

 

 

the development around AH’s stadium will need some type of development to be a year round attraction. Big Ten championship? Super Bowl (if domed)? But what else? I guess the Bears think of a “Sports Experience” there. That’s great. I’d prefer a 110k seat stadium over anything else.  I’d be fine with it if it was still by the lake

 

 

[CubinNY]

You can call me whatever you like but the Bears should play outdoors. They just should 

[Sammy Sofa]

5 hours ago, jersey cubs fan said:

Soldier field is still going to get the big outdoor concerts and other stuff, and wrigley field already competes for shows. A new stadium in Arlington heights is going to sit vacant for the vast majority of the year. 
 

MetLife has two teams playing there and you can drive by most days without anything going on. It doesn’t have anything like soldier field to compete with 

United Center, too.

Nobody's horsefeathers playing Arlington Heights.

[jersey cubs fan]

38 minutes ago, Sammy Sofa said:

United Center, too.

Nobody's horsefeathers playing Arlington Heights.

Well stadium and arena events are different beasts. 

[Sammy Sofa]

35 minutes ago, jersey cubs fan said:

Well stadium and arena events are different beasts. 

Obviously. The point is there's plenty of big venues of varying size actually in the city, and that's where the big acts are gonna go instead.

[Irrelevant Dude]

2 hours ago, CubinNY said:

You can call me whatever you like but the Bears should play outdoors. They just should 

I tend to agree, but I have accepted that likely isn't going to happen.

[BigSlick]

It's a shame they didn't completely demolish old Soldier Field, colonnades and all, in 2002 and build a much bigger stadium there when they had the chance. I suppose its impossible to think about them doing that now, but it was a real missed opportunity at the time. 

 

[Brian707]

7 hours ago, BigSlick said:

It's a shame they didn't completely demolish old Soldier Field, colonnades and all, in 2002 and build a much bigger stadium there when they had the chance. I suppose its impossible to think about them doing that now, but it was a real missed opportunity at the time. 

 

It was a historical landmark at the time.  Now its not since a spaceship landed on top of it. 

[Sammy Sofa]

7 hours ago, BigSlick said:

It's a shame they didn't completely demolish old Soldier Field, colonnades and all, in 2002 and build a much bigger stadium there when they had the chance. I suppose its impossible to think about them doing that now, but it was a real missed opportunity at the time. 

 

The location made it a terrible spot for a modern sports team, and kind of made the state of the stadium itself inconsequential, IMO.

Like, there's no way to have the necessary transportation options without tearing up what makes the Museum Campus so great.

[WrigleyField 22]

7 hours ago, BigSlick said:

It's a shame they didn't completely demolish old Soldier Field, colonnades and all, in 2002 and build a much bigger stadium there when they had the chance. I suppose its impossible to think about them doing that now, but it was a real missed opportunity at the time. 

 

Even a well designed stadium at the same site would gave issues. 

I think McDome was the actual missed opportunity. 

[WrigleyField 22]

27 minutes ago, Brian707 said:

It was a historical landmark at the time.  Now its not since a spaceship landed on top of it. 

I don't think it carried any sort of protected landmark status. It was just a designation. They could have torn that down full stop. 

[Banedon]

'I want to help': Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker open to helping Chicago Bears with infrastructure, but not funding, for new stadium

[Derwood]

The state doesn't have to "fund" the stadium. They can just give the owners insane tax breaks/incentives that save them hundreds of millions of dollars

[minnesotacubsfan]

37 minutes ago, Banedon said:

'I want to help': Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker open to helping Chicago Bears with infrastructure, but not funding, for new stadium

the further down the road this goes, the more likely AH becomes a reality

[Soul]

45 minutes ago, Banedon said:

'I want to help': Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker open to helping Chicago Bears with infrastructure, but not funding, for new stadium

The Mayor doesn't seem to fully understand what's happening...

[Sammy Sofa]

55 minutes ago, Derwood said:

The state doesn't have to "fund" the stadium. They can just give the owners insane tax breaks/incentives that save them hundreds of millions of dollars

[Derwood]

7 minutes ago, Sammy Sofa said:

Sure, just pointing out that most "self-funded" stadiums still have a bajillion tax dollars helping them out