https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/mayor-of-city-in-illinois-says-bears-are-seriously-considering-a-move-out-of-soldier-field-and-to-his-town/ (https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/mayor-of-city-in-illinois-says-bears-are-seriously-considering-a-move-out-of-soldier-field-and-to-his-town/)
I'm not that surprised that Da Bears are looking to finally leave Chicago for a leafy suburb, I mean that Soldier Field is getting tougher to maintain, last being renovated in 2003.
Soldier Field is tiny and is not even historic anymore after the renovations. Good move.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 06, 2021, 06:22:52 PM
Soldier Field is tiny and is not even historic anymore after the renovations. Good move.
You're right about the lack of historicity due to the renovations. Tiny doesn't even describe it well, by today's standards, it is shrimp.
If this by some miracle does happen, maybe Chicago would be back in contention to host the World Cup in 2026?
If & when da Bearsss get serious about this, I wouldn't be surprised if Lightfoot & the city cave and try to offer up Soldier Field improvements as concessions to get them to stay - I can't imagine that's a revenue stream they want disappearing.
Also, can we get George Wendt & Robert Smigel back together to debate this topic? :cheers:
Calling what was done to Soldier Field less than 20 years ago a "renovation" is misleading. They tore 90% of it down and built a new modern stadium inside the façade that remained.
But, throughout the country, we live in an era of stadium extortion. Every 20 years or so, sports teams demand a new taxpayer funded facility, or they will decamp for the suburbs, or some other town.
Quote from: SP Cook on May 07, 2021, 12:03:04 PM
But, throughout the country, we live in an era of stadium extortion. Every 20 years or so, sports teams demand a new taxpayer funded facility, or they will decamp for the suburbs, or some other town.
What about Fenway Park?
When Soldier Field got remodeled, the requirement was that the historic outer shell be preserved. This shell was too narrow to build a traditional 75,000+ stadium inside it.
What should have been done was to ignore the entire shell, preserving just the rows of columns (which is all that anybody really cared about), pushing the eastern set of columns out as far as needed to get a bigger stadium inside.
Maybe moving the Bears somewhere else is the best plan, with Soldier Field being repurposed into something that can get used more often (concerts, etc) and bring more people to that area.
I will really miss being able to take the South Shore to games, but then I only go to a game every 2-3 years.
Quote from: 1 on May 07, 2021, 12:05:07 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on May 07, 2021, 12:03:04 PM
But, throughout the country, we live in an era of stadium extortion. Every 20 years or so, sports teams demand a new taxpayer funded facility, or they will decamp for the suburbs, or some other town.
What about Fenway Park?
Fenway Park is owned by the Red Sox, serves it's purpose and has been renovated vastly over the course of the last 20 years.
Quote from: 1 on May 07, 2021, 12:05:07 PM
What about Fenway Park?
https://www.espn.com/blog/sportsbusiness/post/_/id/651/fenway-renovations-paying-off-immensely
QuoteLest anyone think that's merely a feel-good honor, the designation means millions of dollars -- about $40 million -- to the Red Sox organization. The designation makes the Red Sox eligible for federal tax credits equal to 20 percent of certain funds spent on the stadium preservation and renovations -- even though they occurred over the past 10 years. The team was already eligible for a 20 percent state tax credit, worth another $40 million, $11 million of which it received during the course of renovations. Future renovations also could receive tax credits.
That Fenway Park?
I can't say I blame them. Chicago should look at what happened when Oakland decided to let the Oakland Coliseum get more and more dilapidated. Bye bye Raiders.
At least a move to the burbs keeps them as a "local" team.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on May 07, 2021, 01:15:26 PM
I can't say I blame them. Chicago should look at what happened when Oakland decided to let the Oakland Coliseum get more and more dilapidated. Bye bye Raiders.
At least a move to the burbs keeps them as a "local" team.
Compared to Soldier Field, Arlington Heights would also be a shorter (and much less congested) drive from Halas Hall in Lake Forest, which would make things easier for the kicker (https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/bears/ct-spt-bears-cody-parkey-police-escort-rosenthal-20181212-story.html) :-D
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 07, 2021, 12:15:16 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 07, 2021, 12:05:07 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on May 07, 2021, 12:03:04 PM
But, throughout the country, we live in an era of stadium extortion. Every 20 years or so, sports teams demand a new taxpayer funded facility, or they will decamp for the suburbs, or some other town.
What about Fenway Park?
Fenway Park is owned by the Red Sox, serves it's purpose and has been renovated vastly over the course of the last 20 years.
It does not serve its purpose. It is far too constrained for the amount of demand of tickets. They would easily pay off a new stadium if they added 8000 seats to the current capacity, but just like Wrigley, no one will ever allow the Sox to leave Fenway. They've tried!
Quote from: Alps on May 07, 2021, 05:36:52 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 07, 2021, 12:15:16 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 07, 2021, 12:05:07 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on May 07, 2021, 12:03:04 PM
But, throughout the country, we live in an era of stadium extortion. Every 20 years or so, sports teams demand a new taxpayer funded facility, or they will decamp for the suburbs, or some other town.
What about Fenway Park?
Fenway Park is owned by the Red Sox, serves it's purpose and has been renovated vastly over the course of the last 20 years.
It does not serve its purpose. It is far too constrained for the amount of demand of tickets. They would easily pay off a new stadium if they added 8000 seats to the current capacity, but just like Wrigley, no one will ever allow the Sox to leave Fenway. They've tried!
There are other stadiums that are similar size to Fenway Park. It's a baseball stadium that seats around 37,000 people. Most teams don't average 37,000 every year. The Red Sox sellout streak is over
They were going to build a new Fenway Park about 20 years ago making it bigger and looking the same exact way as the current Fenway Park but they couldn't get that done and renovated the current stadium instead.
Also I think it's the ownership group that stopped that new stadium plan in Boston when John Henry bought the Red Sox is when they renovated the stadium.
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 07, 2021, 06:44:26 PM
Quote from: Alps on May 07, 2021, 05:36:52 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 07, 2021, 12:15:16 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 07, 2021, 12:05:07 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on May 07, 2021, 12:03:04 PM
But, throughout the country, we live in an era of stadium extortion. Every 20 years or so, sports teams demand a new taxpayer funded facility, or they will decamp for the suburbs, or some other town.
What about Fenway Park?
Fenway Park is owned by the Red Sox, serves it's purpose and has been renovated vastly over the course of the last 20 years.
It does not serve its purpose. It is far too constrained for the amount of demand of tickets. They would easily pay off a new stadium if they added 8000 seats to the current capacity, but just like Wrigley, no one will ever allow the Sox to leave Fenway. They've tried!
There are other stadiums that are similar size to Fenway Park. It's a baseball stadium that seats around 37,000 people. Most teams don't average 37,000 every year. The Red Sox sellout streak is over
They were going to build a new Fenway Park about 20 years ago making it bigger and looking the same exact way as the current Fenway Park but they couldn't get that done and renovated the current stadium instead.
I'd think the history of Fenway alone is enough to keep the Sox from ever leaving. Ditto Wrigley for the Cubs. To this day I'm still shocked the old Yankee Stadium is gone.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on May 07, 2021, 06:45:48 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 07, 2021, 06:44:26 PM
Quote from: Alps on May 07, 2021, 05:36:52 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 07, 2021, 12:15:16 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 07, 2021, 12:05:07 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on May 07, 2021, 12:03:04 PM
But, throughout the country, we live in an era of stadium extortion. Every 20 years or so, sports teams demand a new taxpayer funded facility, or they will decamp for the suburbs, or some other town.
What about Fenway Park?
Fenway Park is owned by the Red Sox, serves it's purpose and has been renovated vastly over the course of the last 20 years.
It does not serve its purpose. It is far too constrained for the amount of demand of tickets. They would easily pay off a new stadium if they added 8000 seats to the current capacity, but just like Wrigley, no one will ever allow the Sox to leave Fenway. They've tried!
There are other stadiums that are similar size to Fenway Park. It's a baseball stadium that seats around 37,000 people. Most teams don't average 37,000 every year. The Red Sox sellout streak is over
They were going to build a new Fenway Park about 20 years ago making it bigger and looking the same exact way as the current Fenway Park but they couldn't get that done and renovated the current stadium instead.
I'd think the history of Fenway alone is enough to keep the Sox from ever leaving. Ditto Wrigley for the Cubs. To this day I'm still shocked the old Yankee Stadium is gone.
I don't know if it's because I'm a White Sox fan that hates the Cubs but I really hate Wrigley Field. I've been to several ball games there as a kid to an adult and the place just doesn't impress me. I've been to Fenway Park as well I've only been to one game at Fenway it was in 2004 so the renovations were well underway they had the monster seats and the seats above the retired numbers up on the right field roof.
I took the tour of Fenway and I thought Fenway was a pretty nice ballpark I like the way that sits in the neighborhood that it's in. You can tell it's an old ballpark but it really had a unique feel to it even more so than Wrigley than me.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on May 07, 2021, 06:45:48 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 07, 2021, 06:44:26 PM
Quote from: Alps on May 07, 2021, 05:36:52 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 07, 2021, 12:15:16 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 07, 2021, 12:05:07 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on May 07, 2021, 12:03:04 PM
But, throughout the country, we live in an era of stadium extortion. Every 20 years or so, sports teams demand a new taxpayer funded facility, or they will decamp for the suburbs, or some other town.
What about Fenway Park?
Fenway Park is owned by the Red Sox, serves it's purpose and has been renovated vastly over the course of the last 20 years.
It does not serve its purpose. It is far too constrained for the amount of demand of tickets. They would easily pay off a new stadium if they added 8000 seats to the current capacity, but just like Wrigley, no one will ever allow the Sox to leave Fenway. They've tried!
There are other stadiums that are similar size to Fenway Park. It's a baseball stadium that seats around 37,000 people. Most teams don't average 37,000 every year. The Red Sox sellout streak is over
They were going to build a new Fenway Park about 20 years ago making it bigger and looking the same exact way as the current Fenway Park but they couldn't get that done and renovated the current stadium instead.
I'd think the history of Fenway alone is enough to keep the Sox from ever leaving. Ditto Wrigley for the Cubs. To this day I'm still shocked the old Yankee Stadium is gone.
Add Lambeau Field and Dodger Stadium to that list of historic places. Then again, the Dodgers left Ebbets Field in order to get to L.A. And the Packers are owned by the city of Green Bay, so good luck trying to lure them away with a new stadium.
I've heard the Bears threatening to leave Chicago for the suburbs before, but nothing has ever come of those past efforts, and seeing that they've called Soldier Field home for half a century now, I'd be surprised if Arlington Heights (or any other suburb, for that matter) actually succeeds. Yes, I too find it shocking that the original Yankee Stadium was torn down, but that was the doing of their owners (remember how George Steinbrenner once threatened to move to NJ several years back?).
Here's one site that I remember.
https://ballparks.com/baseball/american/bosbpk.htm
Everything was suppose to be the same as the current ballpark but modernized and bigger. It was suppose to seat around 44,000.
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 07, 2021, 06:53:45 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on May 07, 2021, 06:45:48 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 07, 2021, 06:44:26 PM
Quote from: Alps on May 07, 2021, 05:36:52 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 07, 2021, 12:15:16 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 07, 2021, 12:05:07 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on May 07, 2021, 12:03:04 PM
But, throughout the country, we live in an era of stadium extortion. Every 20 years or so, sports teams demand a new taxpayer funded facility, or they will decamp for the suburbs, or some other town.
What about Fenway Park?
Fenway Park is owned by the Red Sox, serves it's purpose and has been renovated vastly over the course of the last 20 years.
It does not serve its purpose. It is far too constrained for the amount of demand of tickets. They would easily pay off a new stadium if they added 8000 seats to the current capacity, but just like Wrigley, no one will ever allow the Sox to leave Fenway. They've tried!
There are other stadiums that are similar size to Fenway Park. It's a baseball stadium that seats around 37,000 people. Most teams don't average 37,000 every year. The Red Sox sellout streak is over
They were going to build a new Fenway Park about 20 years ago making it bigger and looking the same exact way as the current Fenway Park but they couldn't get that done and renovated the current stadium instead.
I'd think the history of Fenway alone is enough to keep the Sox from ever leaving. Ditto Wrigley for the Cubs. To this day I'm still shocked the old Yankee Stadium is gone.
I don't know if it's because I'm a White Sox fan that hates the Cubs but I really hate Wrigley Field. I've been to several ball games there as a kid to an adult and the place just doesn't impress me. I've been to Fenway Park as well I've only been to one game at Fenway it was in 2004 so the renovations were well underway they had the monster seats and the seats above the retired numbers up on the right field roof.
I took the tour of Fenway and I thought Fenway was a pretty nice ballpark I like the way that sits in the neighborhood that it's in. You can tell it's an old ballpark but it really had a unique feel to it even more so than Wrigley than me.
Yes, it's your hate. Wrigley is an amazing ballpark, a throwback to the old days of stadiums they don't build anymore, and I would gladly go back anytime.
Quote from: Alps on May 08, 2021, 01:00:19 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 07, 2021, 06:53:45 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on May 07, 2021, 06:45:48 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 07, 2021, 06:44:26 PM
Quote from: Alps on May 07, 2021, 05:36:52 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 07, 2021, 12:15:16 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 07, 2021, 12:05:07 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on May 07, 2021, 12:03:04 PM
But, throughout the country, we live in an era of stadium extortion. Every 20 years or so, sports teams demand a new taxpayer funded facility, or they will decamp for the suburbs, or some other town.
What about Fenway Park?
Fenway Park is owned by the Red Sox, serves it's purpose and has been renovated vastly over the course of the last 20 years.
It does not serve its purpose. It is far too constrained for the amount of demand of tickets. They would easily pay off a new stadium if they added 8000 seats to the current capacity, but just like Wrigley, no one will ever allow the Sox to leave Fenway. They've tried!
There are other stadiums that are similar size to Fenway Park. It's a baseball stadium that seats around 37,000 people. Most teams don't average 37,000 every year. The Red Sox sellout streak is over
They were going to build a new Fenway Park about 20 years ago making it bigger and looking the same exact way as the current Fenway Park but they couldn't get that done and renovated the current stadium instead.
I'd think the history of Fenway alone is enough to keep the Sox from ever leaving. Ditto Wrigley for the Cubs. To this day I'm still shocked the old Yankee Stadium is gone.
I don't know if it's because I'm a White Sox fan that hates the Cubs but I really hate Wrigley Field. I've been to several ball games there as a kid to an adult and the place just doesn't impress me. I've been to Fenway Park as well I've only been to one game at Fenway it was in 2004 so the renovations were well underway they had the monster seats and the seats above the retired numbers up on the right field roof.
I took the tour of Fenway and I thought Fenway was a pretty nice ballpark I like the way that sits in the neighborhood that it's in. You can tell it's an old ballpark but it really had a unique feel to it even more so than Wrigley than me.
Yes, it's your hate. Wrigley is an amazing ballpark, a throwback to the old days of stadiums they don't build anymore, and I would gladly go back anytime.
Actually I don't think it is my hate because the first time I went there I didn't hate the Cubs at that point and didn't care for the ballpark. I think Wrigley is vastly overrated. The only thing it has going for it is it's history otherwise it's a dump. The times I've been there it's smelled like urine by the dugouts, posts are in your way, seats are angled improperly, the restrooms are outdated and crowded. Wrigley should have been replaced 30 years ago. The ivy looks nice for the first time seeing it but it's nothing special it's just significant with that ballpark is all. I've never enjoyed myself in the neighborhood surrounding the ballpark either. Being a White Sox fan in the early 1990's you didn't even care about the Cubs. It didn't become the yuppie thing to do until the late 90's/early 2000's. I remember going there in 1988 and the place was empty.
Now go to the Southside of town that's a much nicer ballpark to watch a game in and you have updated amenities and a better crowd of people than at Wrigley. Plus watching Frank Thomas crush 448 home runs for the Pale Hose was fun to watch.
I'd describe the current Soldier Field as a flying saucer that crashed into a museum.
I'm getting really sick of these sports teams demanding new stadiums every 20 years. It's such horseshit.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on May 09, 2021, 11:34:57 AM
I'd describe the current Soldier Field as a flying saucer that crashed into a museum.
I'm getting really sick of these sports teams demanding new stadiums every 20 years. It's such horseshit.
It's a proven way for teams to increase their value. But taxpayer money is much better spent.
Wouldn't put much into it. The Bears still have a lease with Soldier field for another 9 years and this idea was also proposed 30 years ago. Only reason its been dusted off is because the site (Arlington RaceTrack) is being looked at for renovations/redevelopment by the suburb.
https://twitter.com/ChicagoBears/status/1405596779291230210?s=20
This takes things to another level.
This is a part of the metro that I rarely drive in. Any potential highway improvements that could come as a result of the Bears moving?
It would be amazing to renovate Soldier Field to be more soccer-friendly if the Fire are left as the sole tenant. Some of the TV camera placements there are just awful.
Quote from: cabiness42 on June 17, 2021, 03:32:16 PM
[tweet]1405596779291230210[/tweet]?s=20
This takes things to another level.
This is a part of the metro that I rarely drive in. Any potential highway improvements that could come as a result of the Bears moving?
Well, the Jane Addams is something to look at for improvements sake. Also, doesn't Illinois 53 run nearby? Same with the old Northwest Highway.
In Mass Transit, there's already a couple of stations on the old Union Pacific aka Northwest Line. I don't know if Metra has any plans to move forward on the STAR Line.
Quote from: Bruce on June 17, 2021, 05:29:46 PM
It would be amazing to renovate Soldier Field to be more soccer-friendly if the Fire are left as the sole tenant. Some of the TV camera placements there are just awful.
I can see this happening, so long as plans move forward as described previously on this thread.
Quote from: Bruce on June 17, 2021, 05:29:46 PM
It would be amazing to renovate Soldier Field to be more soccer-friendly if the Fire are left as the sole tenant. Some of the TV camera placements there are just awful.
I was about to say, Soldier Field could become an ideal soccer venue. Particularly in the 2026 WC and especially against Costa Rica in February of every qualifying year.
Quote from: Road Hog on June 18, 2021, 12:13:35 AM
Quote from: Bruce on June 17, 2021, 05:29:46 PM
It would be amazing to renovate Soldier Field to be more soccer-friendly if the Fire are left as the sole tenant. Some of the TV camera placements there are just awful.
I was about to say, Soldier Field could become an ideal soccer venue. Particularly in the 2026 WC and especially against Costa Rica in February of every qualifying year.
Yes and yes. Would love to see this.
Quote from: Road Hog on June 18, 2021, 12:13:35 AM
Quote from: Bruce on June 17, 2021, 05:29:46 PM
It would be amazing to renovate Soldier Field to be more soccer-friendly if the Fire are left as the sole tenant. Some of the TV camera placements there are just awful.
I was about to say, Soldier Field could become an ideal soccer venue. Particularly in the 2026 WC and especially against Costa Rica in February of every qualifying year.
WC 2026 sites have already been selected and Chicago is not among them.
Lightfoot's response:
https://twitter.com/MySportsUpdate/status/1405641867719491585
Quote from: cabiness42 on June 18, 2021, 09:12:10 AM
Quote from: Road Hog on June 18, 2021, 12:13:35 AM
Quote from: Bruce on June 17, 2021, 05:29:46 PM
It would be amazing to renovate Soldier Field to be more soccer-friendly if the Fire are left as the sole tenant. Some of the TV camera placements there are just awful.
I was about to say, Soldier Field could become an ideal soccer venue. Particularly in the 2026 WC and especially against Costa Rica in February of every qualifying year.
WC 2026 sites have already been selected and Chicago is not among them.
Okay, maybe not, but still, it's nice to think about.
Quote from: jmacswimmer on June 18, 2021, 09:48:02 AM
Lightfoot's response:
[tweet]1405641867719491585[/tweet]
Hmph, I beg to differ, but I don't know who's going to benefit.
Quote from: jmacswimmer on June 18, 2021, 09:48:02 AM
Lightfoot's response:
https://twitter.com/MySportsUpdate/status/1405641867719491585
The City of Chicago government does not own the name "Chicago." Every Chicago mayor since Jane Byrne has tried to pull that card. The White Sox (Addison), Cubs (Rosemont), and Bears (Arlington Heights) have checked into possible stadiums in the suburbs, and they would have been allowed to keep calling themselves Chicago if they'd been successful.
Besides, other cities have teams named after them that play in a suburb: The Dallas Cowboys play in Arlington. The Los Angeles Angels have been in Anaheim for decades. Both NYC football teams play in New Jersey. There are many more. If Mayor Lightfoot tried to prohibit the Bears from using the name Chicago, she'd be shot down in court faster than you could say "George Halas."
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on June 18, 2021, 01:05:00 PM
Quote from: jmacswimmer on June 18, 2021, 09:48:02 AM
Lightfoot's response:
[tweet]1405641867719491585[/tweet]
The City of Chicago government does not own the name "Chicago." Every Chicago mayor since Jane Byrne has tried to pull that card. The White Sox (Addison), Cubs (Rosemont), and Bears (Arlington Heights) have checked into possible stadiums in the suburbs, and they would have been allowed to keep calling themselves Chicago if they'd been successful.
Besides, other cities have teams named after them that play in a suburb: The Dallas Cowboys play in Arlington. The Los Angeles Angels have been in Anaheim for decades. Both NYC football teams play in New Jersey. There are many more. If Mayor Lightfoot tried to prohibit the Bears from using the name Chicago, she'd be shot down in court faster than you could say "George Halas."
Halas and you shall receive.
If the Bears actually moved to Arlington Heights, there would need to be significant changes to the roads in the area. IL-53 would need to be four-laned. The Lake Avenue exit would need to be rebuilt as something that's not a cloverleaf. Lake Avenue alone would need massive improvements. Some changes to the Rand Road exit would also likely be useful. That's just to name a few.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on June 18, 2021, 03:31:43 PM
If the Bears actually moved to Arlington Heights, there would need to be significant changes to the roads in the area. IL-53 would need to be four-laned. The Lake Avenue exit would need to be rebuilt as something that's not a cloverleaf. Lake Avenue alone would need massive improvements. Some changes to the Rand Road exit would also likely be useful. That's just to name a few.
Right. Lake Avenue would be a nightmare.
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 07, 2021, 12:13:36 PM
I will really miss being able to take the South Shore to games, but then I only go to a game every 2-3 years.
It really threw me off the first time I saw passengers drinking a Bloody Mary on Metra.
Quote from: kphoger on June 18, 2021, 04:01:48 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 07, 2021, 12:13:36 PM
I will really miss being able to take the South Shore to games, but then I only go to a game every 2-3 years.
It really threw me off the first time I saw passengers drinking a Bloody Mary on Metra.
Take an Eastbound South Shore on a Friday afternoon between September and November and people will give you all the whiskey you want.
I'm hoping that they'll keep the racetrack and renovate it, especially since the land is large enough to add the stadium to the mix. Then a mini-Meadowlands could be created with room to build a new arena (or at least, a practice facility) for the Bulls, Sky, Blackhawks and Wolves if they wanted it, but that would be kind of pushing it.
Quote from: Henry on June 21, 2021, 11:49:28 AM
I'm hoping that they'll keep the racetrack and renovate it, especially since the land is large enough to add the stadium to the mix. Then a mini-Meadowlands could be created with room to build a new arena (or at least, a practice facility) for the Bulls, Sky, Blackhawks and Wolves if they wanted it, but that would be kind of pushing it.
Yes that does sounds like much but one can dream.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on June 18, 2021, 01:05:00 PM
The City of Chicago government does not own the name "Chicago."
Besides, other cities have teams named after them that play in a suburb: The Dallas Cowboys play in Arlington. The Los Angeles Angels have been in Anaheim for decades. Both NYC football teams play in New Jersey. There are many more.
Indeed.
MLB Atlanta plays in Cumberland, Cobb County, 10 miles and 100 years from Atlanta.
NFL Buffalo plays in Orchard Park, and has just announced plans to build a new stadium there. Like 99% of the things "in" Las Vegas, the Raiders' stadium really isn't, it is in the casino company controlled unincorporated place of Paradise, NV. Both Los Angeles teams play in Inglewood, CA. And the San Francisco team plays 40 miles from San Francisco in Santa Clara
NHL the New York Islanders play in Uniondale, and are moving to Elmont, both in Nassau County; and like the Raiders, the Golden Knights, play in Paradise.
And that leaves out all the teams named for states or regions, most of which play in suburbs as well.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on June 18, 2021, 01:05:00 PM
Quote from: jmacswimmer on June 18, 2021, 09:48:02 AM
Lightfoot's response:
https://twitter.com/MySportsUpdate/status/1405641867719491585
The City of Chicago government does not own the name "Chicago." Every Chicago mayor since Jane Byrne has tried to pull that card. The White Sox (Addison), Cubs (Rosemont), and Bears (Arlington Heights) have checked into possible stadiums in the suburbs, and they would have been allowed to keep calling themselves Chicago if they'd been successful.
Besides, other cities have teams named after them that play in a suburb: The Dallas Cowboys play in Arlington. The Los Angeles Angels have been in Anaheim for decades. Both NYC football teams play in New Jersey. There are many more. If Mayor Lightfoot tried to prohibit the Bears from using the name Chicago, she'd be shot down in court faster than you could say "George Halas."
Think the mayor will find out the pro sports owners don't wilt away as quickly as people that do things for Washington DC and ilk people do.......and until Bears find a passable quarterback good luck beating the Packers assuming Rodgers stays
Quote from: JoePCool14 on June 18, 2021, 03:31:43 PM
If the Bears actually moved to Arlington Heights, there would need to be significant changes to the roads in the area. IL-53 would need to be four-laned. The Lake Avenue exit would need to be rebuilt as something that's not a cloverleaf. Lake Avenue alone would need massive improvements. Some changes to the Rand Road exit would also likely be useful. That's just to name a few.
That needs to be done regardless of whether the Bears move or not. Maybe this will finally push IDOT and ISTHA to finally redo the I-90/I-290/IL-53 interchange. This has been needed for a long time.
I know it's probably a negotiating tactic, but I hope the Bears move.
Quote from: SP Cook on June 22, 2021, 12:04:52 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on June 18, 2021, 01:05:00 PM
The City of Chicago government does not own the name "Chicago."
Besides, other cities have teams named after them that play in a suburb: The Dallas Cowboys play in Arlington. The Los Angeles Angels have been in Anaheim for decades. Both NYC football teams play in New Jersey. There are many more.
Indeed.
MLB Atlanta plays in Cumberland, Cobb County, 10 miles and 100 years from Atlanta.
NFL Buffalo plays in Orchard Park, and has just announced plans to build a new stadium there. Like 99% of the things "in" Las Vegas, the Raiders' stadium really isn't, it is in the casino company controlled unincorporated place of Paradise, NV. Both Los Angeles teams play in Inglewood, CA. And the San Francisco team plays 40 miles from San Francisco in Santa Clara
NHL the New York Islanders play in Uniondale, and are moving to Elmont, both in Nassau County; and like the Raiders, the Golden Knights, play in Paradise.
And that leaves out all the teams named for states or regions, most of which play in suburbs as well.
The Miami Dolphins play in Miami Gardens, which is close to, but not in, Miami.
The Washington
Redskins Football Team plays in Landover, MD, but is rumored to move back to the nation's capital sometime down the road.
Even when the Arizona Cardinals had Phoenix in their name, they actually played in Tempe, and now they play in Glendale.
As for the geographically-named teams:
MLB--The Arizona Diamondbacks play in Phoenix; the Colorado Rockies play in Denver; the Minnesota Twins play in Minneapolis; the Tampa Bay Rays play in St. Petersburg; and the Texas Rangers play in Arlington.
NFL--The Carolina Panthers play in Charlotte; the Minnesota Vikings play in Minneapolis; the New England Patriots play in Foxboro, MA (a long way outside Boston); the Tampa Bay Buccaneers play in Tampa; and the Tennessee Titans play in Nashville.
NBA--The Golden State Warriors play in San Francisco; the Indiana Pacers play in Indianapolis; the Minnesota Timberwolves play in Minneapolis; and the Utah Jazz play in Salt Lake City.
NHL--The Arizona Coyotes play in Glendale (and frankly, I'm surprised that they don't play at the Suns' arena in Phoenix like they initially did); the Carolina Hurricanes play in Raleigh; the Colorado Avalanche play in Denver; the Minnesota Wild play in St. Paul (the only one that does not play in the larger Twin City); the New Jersey Devils play in Newark; and the Tampa Bay Lightning play in Tampa.
Quote from: Henry on June 23, 2021, 11:58:14 AM
NHL--The Arizona Coyotes play in Glendale (and frankly, I'm surprised that they don't play at the Suns' arena in Phoenix like they initially did)...
The Suns' arena wasn't built to accommodate hockey. Too many obstructed views in the upper deck, IIRC. They're in hockey-unfriendly Glendale because the owner at the time was refused when he tried to purchase a defunct shopping mall on the south (read: poor) side of Scottsdale to put his arena. He owned land in Glendale, and eventually the Cardinals moved in nearby.
The west side of the Phoenix metro is good for football, but most of the hockey fans are in the Mesa/Tempe area, and the big money is in Scottsdale.
The move could be one step closer to reality, as Arlington Heights just approved the land to be zoned for the new stadium:
https://bearswire.usatoday.com/2021/06/23/arlington-heights-approves-possible-bears-stadium/
Quote from: Henry on June 30, 2021, 09:08:16 PM
The move could be one step closer to reality, as Arlington Heights just approved the land to be zoned for the new stadium:
https://bearswire.usatoday.com/2021/06/23/arlington-heights-approves-possible-bears-stadium/
This isn't going to end with the Bears just moving. There is going to have to be some sort of financial agreement between the Bears and the city of Chicago. Either the city of Chicago makes financial concessions to keep the Bears in the city, or the Bears make some sort of financial deal with the city to get out of their lease.
Ultimately, I think it's in the city's best interest to let the Bears build at Arlington Heights because a retractable roof stadium brings all kinds of financial benefits to both Arlington Heights and Chicago. Even with a new stadium in Arlington Heights, many people going to events there are going to spend money at hotels and restaurants in the city.
In the end, I think the city will let the team go with an agreement that guarantees two Super Bowls within 10 years, probably something else like a draft or two and maybe the combine once or twice, and maybe an agreement to still have one home game per year at Soldier Field the way the Packers used to do with Milwaukee.
Arlington Heights is more convenient for much of the Chicago metro area anyway.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 30, 2021, 10:23:00 PM
Arlington Heights is more convenient for much of the Chicago metro area anyway.
Not from where I live, but I'd still be OK with it. I only average about one game every other year.
Now if the White Sox moved that far away, that would definitely cut down the number of games I go to.
Quote from: cabiness42 on June 30, 2021, 10:37:40 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 30, 2021, 10:23:00 PM
Arlington Heights is more convenient for much of the Chicago metro area anyway.
Not from where I live, but I'd still be OK with it. I only average about one game every other year.
Now if the White Sox moved that far away, that would definitely cut down the number of games I go to.
The Sox were looking at a site in Addison, near where I-290 and I-355 (then IL 53) meet, circa 1986-87. It was shot down due to environmental concerns, and that's when they started looking at moving to Tampa/St. Pete. Fortunately, then-Governor Jim Thompson was able to broker a deal to keep the Sox in Chicago, literally 5 minutes before the 1987 legislative session ended.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 30, 2021, 10:23:00 PM
Arlington Heights is more convenient for much of the Chicago metro area anyway.
It's definitely more convenient for me. I drive by the would-be site quite frequently, but I'm not close enough to be affected during games. I wonder how the residents of Arlington Heights feel. (Let me guess, there's some NIMBYs.)
Quote from: cabiness42 on June 30, 2021, 09:28:23 PM
In the end, I think the city will let the team go with an agreement that guarantees two Super Bowls within 10 years, probably something else like a draft or two and maybe the combine once or twice, and maybe an agreement to still have one home game per year at Soldier Field the way the Packers used to do with Milwaukee.
At best, they'll probably do a preseason game at Soldier once they have moved to new digs in the burbs.
If Solider Field ends up as a soccer stadium, then they can tear down half of it and still have plenty of room for fans. :P
Bump to say the Bears will now contribute $2B to a new stadium inside Chicago.
Quote from: Big John on March 11, 2024, 07:39:46 AM
Bump to say the Bears will now contribute $2B to a new stadium inside Chicago.
And not only that, it will be a domed stadium to the south of Soldier Field. I always figured that it would have a roof and finally allow the city to host Super Bowls and Final Fours.
The two publicly financed stadiums in Chicago are both disasters.
You really don't realize how badly they screwed up New Comiskey Park until you visit the two MLB stadiums in Missouri. Kauffman Stadium in Kansas City was the prototype for Comiskey- it was the last stadium built for baseball before Comiskey was opened in 1991. But somehow it's a better stadium with more good seats. When you look over the centerfield scoreboard at Busch Stadium in St. Louis, you see the Gateway Arch. If Comiskey Park's home plate was in the SW corner of the field like it should be, you'd see the Chicago skyline over the centerfield scoreboard. But they put home plate in the NW corner, so all you got to see was the high-rise public housing projects across the Dan Ryan Expressway- before they tore them down.
Don't get me started on the wisdom of dropping the spaceship into Soldier Field, other than to say that connecting an 80,000 seat climate-controlled stadium (preferably one with a retractable roof so "Bear Weather" is still a possibility) to McCormick Place would be a serious shot in the arm for Chicago's convention and tourism industry.
One proposal would have a new stadium for the White Sox built in the South Loop and have the Bears stadium built where Comiskey Park now stands. There are advantages here- parking and access to public transportation being at the top of the list- but I still think you want the Bears stadium close to McCormick Place to draw large conventions. Maybe an L line to the McCormick Place area and the Museum Campus is part of the plan here.
Quote from: Konza on March 11, 2024, 10:51:26 PM
(preferably one with a retractable roof so "Bear Weather" is still a possibility)
Retractable roofs on NFL venues are a waste of money. Go around the league, the teams that have them, the roof is closed the majority of games. Hundreds of millions more dollars for an asset that isn't used as much as its intended to. I think specifically of Houston and Tempe where they close the roof cuz it's too hot. Oh the Death Star; that one always seems to be closed, too.
Though I must say, leaving the roof open on a shitty day would really make the retractable roof pointless since the whole point in having one is that you close it when it's cold and shitty out.
If they are staying in the city though, I'm glad for that. Chicago already has elaborate infrastructure to get people to The Loop, why not take advantage of that for sports venues?
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 18, 2024, 11:51:19 AM
Quote from: Konza on March 11, 2024, 10:51:26 PM
(preferably one with a retractable roof so "Bear Weather" is still a possibility)
Retractable roofs on NFL venues are a waste of money. Go around the league, the teams that have them, the roof is closed the majority of games. Hundreds of millions more dollars for an asset that isn't used as much as its intended to. I think specifically of Houston and Tempe where they close the roof cuz it's too hot. Oh the Death Star; that one always seems to be closed, too.
Though I must say, leaving the roof open on a shitty day would really make the retractable roof pointless since the whole point in having one is that you close it when it's cold and shitty out.
If they are staying in the city though, I'm glad for that. Chicago already has elaborate infrastructure to get people to The Loop, why not take advantage of that for sports venues?
A retractable roof makes a stadium eligible for Super Bowls, college football playoff games, NCAA Final Fours, etc. It's not just about the NFL team's usage.
So would a regular dome.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 18, 2024, 03:28:45 PM
So would a regular dome.
Ah, I thought the argument was against a roof at all, not against a retractable one. I agree that the roof being retractable is an unnecessary expense.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on March 18, 2024, 03:54:21 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 18, 2024, 03:28:45 PM
So would a regular dome.
Ah, I thought the argument was against a roof at all, not against a retractable one. I agree that the roof being retractable is an unnecessary expense.
Probably because it won't be used as frequently as it is in the MLB ballparks that host up to nine times as many regular season games. So yeah, retractable roofs in the NFL are not exactly a great idea.
I think I can count on one hand the number of times the retractable roof at Jerry World was open for a game since 2009, even in October with perfect weather.
Quote from: Road Hog on March 19, 2024, 02:15:33 AM
I think I can count on one hand the number of times the retractable roof at Jerry World was open for a game since 2009, even in October with perfect weather.
Whereas I was at a single baseball game in Milwaukee where they opened and closed the roof three times.
Someone earlier in this thread asked why the old Yankee Stadium is gone.
I believe one of the reasons we saw it get completely torn down and replaced is that the building and land were owned by the City and not by the Yankees directly. Any renovation plans would have to get City approval.
Old YS's ownership history is rather interesting. At one point, the land it sat on was owned by Rice University as the previous owner died and bequeathed it to them.
Chicago in general has some really pathetic owners, especially McCaskey and Reinsdorf.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 02, 2021, 02:59:20 PMQuote from: cabiness42 on June 30, 2021, 09:28:23 PMIn the end, I think the city will let the team go with an agreement that guarantees two Super Bowls within 10 years, probably something else like a draft or two and maybe the combine once or twice, and maybe an agreement to still have one home game per year at Soldier Field the way the Packers used to do with Milwaukee.
At best, they'll probably do a preseason game at Soldier once they have moved to new digs in the burbs.
If Solider Field ends up as a soccer stadium, then they can tear down half of it and still have plenty of room for fans. :P
In the newest plans, Soldier Field would be torn down with the exception of the colonnades, so a soccer stadium is out of the question. This is the biggest consequence of having its historic status taken away.
When the new stadium is finished, then Green Bay will be the only NFC North team without a dome to play in, and Lambeau Field is good enough for them.
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 23, 2024, 09:29:37 PMChicago in general has some really pathetic owners, especially McCaskey and Reinsdorf.
No kidding. Reinsdorf is a waste of space. He couldn't even be bothered to retain our beloved lead TV commentator who is a lifelong White Sox fan and was great at his job. Cheapskate. The Sox have almost zero chance of being good until he sells the team or dies.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 29, 2024, 10:03:42 AMQuote from: Flint1979 on March 23, 2024, 09:29:37 PMChicago in general has some really pathetic owners, especially McCaskey and Reinsdorf.
No kidding. Reinsdorf is a waste of space. He couldn't even be bothered to retain our beloved lead TV commentator who is a lifelong White Sox fan and was great at his job. Cheapskate. The Sox have almost zero chance of being good until he sells the team or dies.
Jerry has got to be the most anti fan friendly owner in the game. What would be really nice would be to see him start losing money. I can't stand the guy he is like a dinosaur in today's game and needs to go. He never was a good owner in the first place.
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 29, 2024, 10:43:20 AMQuote from: JoePCool14 on March 29, 2024, 10:03:42 AMQuote from: Flint1979 on March 23, 2024, 09:29:37 PMChicago in general has some really pathetic owners, especially McCaskey and Reinsdorf.
No kidding. Reinsdorf is a waste of space. He couldn't even be bothered to retain our beloved lead TV commentator who is a lifelong White Sox fan and was great at his job. Cheapskate. The Sox have almost zero chance of being good until he sells the team or dies.
Jerry has got to be the most anti fan friendly owner in the game. What would be really nice would be to see him start losing money. I can't stand the guy he is like a dinosaur in today's game and needs to go. He never was a good owner in the first place.
What is it about owners named Jerry that they end up being douchebags?
The McCaskey family has made awful decisions in who they hire to run the team, but I wouldn't consider them awful owners per se. They care a lot about winning.
Jerry Reinsdorf stopped caring once he won a World Series in 2005. He cares nothing about the fans nor winning.
Bill Wirtz may have been the worst owner of all. So focused on profits over fans that he blacked out home games to try to drive up attendance.