By Merino and Roberto Gomez-Valadez
@redlineproject
In a season full of controversy on the field for the Chicago Bears, they’ve also been dealing with a big one off it — finding a location for a new stadium.
Bears leadership is mulling three proposals for the future home for the team.
- The Michael Reese Hospital location has begun to gain a lot of traction. South of the McCormick Place, it will be near the current Soldier Field location. Originally, Bears ownership deemed the site too narrow for their use but have warmed up to the idea. This location has been backed by the Friends of the Parks organization, as members believe the site offers better public transportation access and would be a more suitable location for the stadium, preserving the lakefront environment for public use.
- Arlington Heights was the original location and most-popular for some Bears fans. The Chicago Bears purchased a 326 acre piece of land in the city, leading many to believe the Bears may leave Chicago for the northwest suburb. Many fans say that moving the stadium away from Downtown Chicago will make it easier to access games, decrease traffic and have better parking. On Nov. 25, the Bears reached a deal regarding property taxes that will be paid for the site, which still needs to be approved by Arlington Heights and its school boards. Bears President Kevin Warren said that “We’ll stay in communication with Arlington Heights, but the focus now has to be on Chicago to give us the best opportunity for success.”
- The Burnham Park Project has seen the most momentum as of late. The proposed stadium is located south of Soldier Field by the lakefront, and will cost around $6.9 billion in total to build. This location has been backed by Mayor Brandon Johnson and has been backed by Bears ownership as well. Building a new stadium in Chicago has raised questions for residents who worry that there will be an increase in taxes and that the stadium will use public funding. Benefits of this stadium include more seating, expanded green spaces and jobs for Chicago residents during construction.
This wouldn’t be the first time the team has switched stadiums. Nine stadiums have been home to the Bears across their storied history, most notably including Wrigley Field from 1921 to 1970.
The Bears have called Soldier Field home since 1971, but they first played football in the stadium for a game in 1926, when the Chicago Bears and Chicago Cardinals (now the Arizona Cardinals) faced off against each other in the first professional football game in Soldier Field.
The stadium opened on Oct. 9, 1924, turning 100 years old this year. According to the Soldier Field website, the stadium was built as a memorial for American soldiers who have died in battle.
Keeping the stadium in Chicago raises many concerns for residents as well as for Bears fans.
One of those concerns is that the Bears want to fund the new stadium with $3 billion of taxpayer money. Many do not feel that it is appropriate to use public funds for a new stadium when the City of Chicago is currently staring down a deficit of nearly $1 billion starting in 2025.
Joshua Drucker, an Urban Planning and Policy professor at the University of Illinois Chicago since 2008, said the McCaskey family, the Bears’ owners, will be the ones to benefit the most from the new stadium being built in Chicago while the government and the City of Chicago suffer.
“Public funding for sports teams that are mostly owned by millionaires and billionaires and that mostly pay high salaries to athletes that don’t even live in the area, they don’t pay back, if its a question of is it worth the money on the basis of tax revenues, probably not…In almost no case does the public funding recoup the investment,” he said.
Another concern: Fans say that a new Chicago stadium will have even less parking space, making it harder for them to access games. Many worry that traffic will make it even more difficult to go to the games and just to travel around downtown Chicago. The Arlington Heights location has Interstate 90 and a Metra Line that pass right by the stadium location, the old Arlington Race Course.
A group that has heavily opposed the new Lakefront stadium is “Friends of the Parks”. The organization says they will push back against a new stadium being built because of the financial impact it will have on the average Chicago taxpayer and will only benefit the wealthy.
Glen Kilgore, interim executive director of Friends of the Parks, made a statement opposing a new stadium being built in Chicago’s Lakefront. “The people you see here also represent city leaders — the grassroot taxpayers who keep this city operating. That’s who we’re asking our elected officials to protect by ensuring Chicago’s Lakefront remains “forever open, clear and free” for future generations.”
The Chicago Lakefront coalition was started by the Friends of the Parks organization but now the coalition has grown and expanded to include more groups. The coalition has started a petition to “STOP the Chicago Bears new stadium proposal on Chicago’s lakefront.”
Drucker said there are benefits a location in Arlington Heights: “They are trying to replace a site that was a race track.. They lost some tourism and some activities and they want to recoup that, they want visitors, they want some of the local stores to have foot traffic. They might be able to use the stadium for other activities, monster truck rallies and concerts..some of the surrounding communities could also benefit and see some of the impacts,” he said.
When contacted for comment about the new stadium, Bears officials responded that there is “no information available to share with the public or outside of our organization at the moment.”
For many Bears fans anticipating the move, Soldier Field is a storied stadium that carries the legacy of the NFL’s oldest team. But despite the attachment, many of these same fans argue the time has come for change to arrive, even if a move to the suburbs happens.
One of the major drawbacks with the stadium is its seating capacity. With capacity having been slashed to 61,500 seats after the controversial renovation project completed in 2002, Soldier Field has the lowest seating capacity of all NFL stadiums. It also stands as the oldest stadium in the NFL, with construction being completed in 1924.
Another issue affecting some Bears fans is the current location of the stadium. While offering a scenic view on the lakefront, traffic delays during prime-time games have been cited as a major issue, putting a blight on what would otherwise be a good outing. With traffic downtown becoming such a significant detractor to attending a Bears game, it starts to become clear why the Chicago Bears had the Arlington Heights site as a top contender to replace Soldier Field. Some fans have expressed interest in a move to the suburbs for this very reason.
Bears fan Nathan Vo said he would be satisfied with a move to Arlington Heights. After becoming an avid follower of the team in 2018, he’s only been able to witness the team in action live once, with the nightmarish traffic situation being one of the main reasons he hasn’t been able to return. While not opposed to a new stadium in Chicago or even staying at Soldier Field, Vo sees a lot of attractive details with the Arlington Heights site.
“I feel they should do it in Arlington, because there’s so much less traffic, and it’d just be easier,” he said. “They could start from fresh and get new parking, make parking cheaper, do a lot of things better in Arlington.”
Your Thoughts
This is not the first time controversy has surrounded Soldier Field. In 2002, the stadium was renovated to modernize the facility due to its aging infrastructure. Many criticized the updated design as it took away from the classic architecture of the stadium and said the renovations made it look like a “spaceship”. Where do you think the new Chicago Bears stadium should be built? Should the Chicago Bears home remain at Soldier Field?