Jump to content

Bears purchase land in Chicago suburb Arlington Heights


Recommended Posts

The Bears have been fighting over the size and relative outdated status of Soldier Field and this has been speculated to come for a while. It now looks inevitable that the Bears will no longer reside within the city of Chicago come a few years from now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did I think this happened months ago? And then the mayor of Chicago talked some trash publicly about the team afterwards.

Ill have to look it up. I guess it was just a threat before, but they followed through.

Edited by Matts4313
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bears need a new stadium and that's long overdue. There aren't enough seats, it's outdated, and the field is trash and filled with turf monsters.

Plus, what sense does it make to have one of the largest markets in the league while also having the lowest seating capacity? That defies logic to me from both a business AND common sense standpoint.

Imagine throwing a national event to earn money while expecting 75 thousand people to show to up but you can only seat 60k. That's the epitome of a missed opportunity.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Why did I think this happened months ago? And then the mayor of Chicago talked some trash publicly about the team afterwards.

Because people only post/read headlines and don't actually follow what's really going on.

The McCaskeys put in for a bid earlier on but it wasn't set in stone and neither is the move.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Google Maps tells me that it’s 33 minutes away, which IMO isn’t a big deal. It’s clearly all about the stadium, so the Bears essentially stay in Chicago but get their stadium. To be honest, I’d bet the traffic flow situation will be better and you still have the same or at least a comparable impact on local businesses from away fans. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

Google Maps tells me that it’s 33 minutes away, which IMO isn’t a big deal. It’s clearly all about the stadium, so the Bears essentially stay in Chicago but get their stadium. To be honest, I’d bet the traffic flow situation will be better and you still have the same or at least a comparable impact on local businesses from away fans. 

I see no downsides then

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Hunter2_1 said:
33 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

Google Maps tells me that it’s 33 minutes away, which IMO isn’t a big deal. It’s clearly all about the stadium, so the Bears essentially stay in Chicago but get their stadium. To be honest, I’d bet the traffic flow situation will be better and you still have the same or at least a comparable impact on local businesses from away fans. 

I see no downsides then

Having family in the area, from a convenience standpoint and travel flow, this would be better geographically.

That said, one of the coolest parts of Chicago is that the lakefront doesn't have any private property, and Soldier Field being right by all the major museums and the trails on this huge park that you can walk or bike all the way up to Navy pier is one of the best parts of the city. Plus you have the history of the stadium. So, I get it, but let's not pretend you aren't losing something by moving the team to the northwest side.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Having family in the area, from a convenience standpoint and travel flow, this would be better geographically.

That said, one of the coolest parts of Chicago is that the lakefront doesn't have any private property, and Soldier Field being right by all the major museums and the trails on this huge park that you can walk or bike all the way up to Navy pier is one of the best parts of the city. Plus you have the history of the stadium. So, I get it, but let's not pretend you aren't losing something by moving the team to the northwest side.

Recently drove my oldest daughter to Chicago to drop her off at UChicago for Grad School. Spent a week there touring and taking in the sites. It was by far the WORST city I have ever attempted to drive in. Now I've never driven in LA but compared to Boston, Providence, Orlando, Atlanta, Denver, New York City, Cleveland etc.. I was absolutely shellshocked at how difficult it was to get around the city. And that is saying something because Boston is a maze of twisty turny one way streets. The combination of the bike lanes and pedestrians that don't even look before darting across the street I was scared to go over 10 MPH in most areas. Eventually we just started taking the Metra everywhere. I guess long story short... my point is the city itself is so bad to drive around that any relief is good from my viewpoint.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Having family in the area, from a convenience standpoint and travel flow, this would be better geographically.

That said, one of the coolest parts of Chicago is that the lakefront doesn't have any private property, and Soldier Field being right by all the major museums and the trails on this huge park that you can walk or bike all the way up to Navy pier is one of the best parts of the city. Plus you have the history of the stadium. So, I get it, but let's not pretend you aren't losing something by moving the team to the northwest side.

Yeah, I get the nostalgia. Cleveland Brown stadium is right on the lake, traffic is a nightmare, but it's pretty cool. It would basically be like moving the team to Solon, Hudson, etc.

That said, there is a strained relationship there on a political front, of course revolving around money, and when you take shots at the Bears for putting a winning product on the field and blow them off, reminding ownership of their lease through 2033, you're also picking a fight.

That said, they could absolutely be using this as a major negotiating tactic to build a new stadium in Chicago, and then they can sell their newly acquired land or even build some sort of outside the city facility for training camp, etc. if that's something they want to do. This is far from a done deal IMO.

Edited by MWil23
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shockwave said:

Recently drove my oldest daughter to Chicago to drop her off at UChicago for Grad School. Spent a week there touring and taking in the sites. It was by far the WORST city I have ever attempted to drive in. Now I've never driven in LA but compared to Boston, Providence, Orlando, Atlanta, Denver, New York City, Cleveland etc.. I was absolutely shellshocked at how difficult it was to get around the city. And that is saying something because Boston is a maze of twisty turny one way streets. The combination of the bike lanes and pedestrians that don't even look before darting across the street I was scared to go over 10 MPH in most areas. Eventually we just started taking the Metra everywhere. I guess long story short... my point is the city itself is so bad to drive around that any relief is good from my viewpoint.

Oh yeah it's terrible. I don't disagree with any of that. The post I quoted said, "I see no downsides", and that's what I object to. There are a few.

Are they offset by the convenience is the question, and I think there's reasonable room for differences of opinion on that front. I'm not saying I'd go to war over the Bears moving or anything, honestly I don't even know what my opinion is on it at this point.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TheKillerNacho said:

Is the owner looking to build the new stadium using private funds? If so, I see no issue here.

This is my thought process as well. I always despise owners who hold fanbases hostage with taxpayer funds and threaten to move the team, so if he's going to still stay close to Chicago and use his own private money/the money of sponsors, I have 0 issues with this whatsoever.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Has this gotten as far yet as to determine what type of new stadium will be built, wherever the location?

When First Energy Stadium in Cleveland was being planned, the NFL preyed on the city leaders desperation to get a team back. With the abbreviated time crunch the NFL placed on the city, the only viable option was to build First Energy Stadium on the site of old Municipal Stadium, and in its current configuration - open air, grass stadium. Now, that qualifies as a missed opportunity.

Had more time been afforded, a better option in my mind would have been a hard dome/retractable roof facility on a more accessible location. You certainly could use it more than the present facility is used. But what I think was happening behind the scenes was the NFL was miffed that Cleveland was DEMANDING a team back after they failed to act to block our former owner from moving. You want a team? Fine - You have 3 years, take it or leave it.

If the Bears are proceeding with a new facility, I hope they realize there will be certain amenities their fans will expect. Sitting outdoors in January to brace against a wind that bites so hard against your face it threatens to snap off any facial hairs is not at the top of their list. I hope the powers that be design a facility that make more sense for the fans and the facility's owners wallets.

 

Edited by brooks1957
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JAF-N72EX said:

Because people only post/read headlines and don't actually follow what's really going on.

The McCaskeys put in for a bid earlier on but it wasn't set in stone and neither is the move.

That and I dont really care about the bears moving minutes away. People on reddit were losing their ish - I guess its really easy to get to the new stadium via public transportation vs the new spot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...