Chicago Bears 2026

Status
Not open for further replies.
#51      
If they move to Hammond, would they still be called the Chicago Bears?

FWIW, years ago, even without bad weather, driving around Lake Michigan into Indiana had always been an absolutely miserable drive, slow as snails and the scenery was depressing. Has this changed? Is there going to be a new/improved freeway to Hammond? I just can't see anyone from Chicagoland wanting to drive to those games. More likely to pull Indy or ND fans maybe?
 
#52      
If they move to Hammond, would they still be called the Chicago Bears?

FWIW, years ago, even without bad weather, driving around Lake Michigan into Indiana had always been an absolutely miserable drive, slow as snails and the scenery was depressing. Has this changed? Is there going to be a new/improved freeway to Hammond? I just can't see anyone from Chicagoland wanting to drive to those games. More likely to pull Indy or ND fans maybe?
it will sell out every friggin game with 99% of the same fans. they will figure a way to monetize the parkling/tailgating and people will love it

yea, right now that area is god awful looking and the traffic sux.
but bad traffic doesnt stop people from going to Wrigley

I still think its AH deal to lose, but its 50/50 and time is running out.
hard to say if more development in Hammond/Whiting will occur afterwards. all depends on how often they can book other events from January 15- August 15
 
#53      
Seems like a ploy form the Bears FO to get IL moving on the Ar Hgts location. Hammond Ind? Too bizarre.

Notable: I am not a Bears fan. Just seems too goofy to be true.
 
#56      
Chiefs are moving from Missouri to Kansas...
 
#58      
I don’t think it matters much where the Bears or Chiefs play in regards to their main locale. What sucks as a fan is both teams playing in sterile domes. That’s part of the fun of football is the weather elements especially in the Midwest. Putting both those teams in domes just won’t be the same
 
#61      
The amazing trick that's being pulled here is somehow making Arlington Heights look like the sober, rational place for the team to be, rather than the reality of that being an insane gamble on putting a facility like this so far from downtown amid low-density residential.

The stadiums in NY, DC, even LA are nowhere near that remote.
 
#62      
Are we all meeting at Soldier Field and then driving to the new stadium for the game ?

Two words: Booze cruise!

taste of chicago GIF
 
#63      
The amazing trick that's being pulled here is somehow making Arlington Heights look like the sober, rational place for the team to be, rather than the reality of that being an insane gamble on putting a facility like this so far from downtown amid low-density residential.

The stadiums in NY, DC, even LA are nowhere near that remote.
it seems to be working okay in Foxborough, Mass

I question the viability of an "entertainment district" around it, as I dont think its working in Rosemont by the B1G offices, but a profitable Bears stadium to attract other football games, and other events from Feb-July is certainly possible to be a success.

Most Bear , Bull and Blackhawk fans dont live anywhere near downtown Chicago.
 
#64      
The amazing trick that's being pulled here is somehow making Arlington Heights look like the sober, rational place for the team to be, rather than the reality of that being an insane gamble on putting a facility like this so far from downtown amid low-density residential.

The stadiums in NY, DC, even LA are nowhere near that remote.
It doesn't matter one iota how far it is from downtown. Not one bit. What matters is how far it is away from the season ticket holders and various options for transportation. 80% of the season ticket holders are from the North, Northwest and Western Suburbs.

Arlington Heights is a stones throw away from Schaumburg, Mt. Prospect, Rolling Meadows, Barrington, etc. It's also flanked by 53/290, 90, 355, 294, which covers the entire region, then you have Metra(Mass Transit) right there. You also have O'Hare airport right which is flanked by an enormous amount of hotels. There's no shortage of hospitality that's already there!

If you bury this in Indiana, you've moved it 20 miles FURTHER away from than the portion of the fanbase that actually buys the product.

Now, the issue with Arlington Heights is the amount of infrastructure costs that would be associated with it, thus the reason for the $900M push. It is a very well to do area, but it's an area that's older because they've resisted improvements. They've wanted to maintain its "charm". They freak out if ComEd comes in to trim a tree that's close to a power line. The stadium would be surrounded by Arlington Heights Road, Algonquin Road and Euclid Avenue. The streets would have to be widened, there would have to be additional exit/entrance ramps coming from the expressway, etc. The Bears have already paid for the survey to be done on the traffic patterns, deemed it to be ok.....with 900M infrastructure help from the state.

Hammond is a better deal for the Bears in the short term. They're willing to pick up the tab on some of the stadium cost and they're willing to guarantee taxes. Indiana is just a better state to do business in. Illinois is dominated by the Chicago Teacher's Union that's bankrupted the state, so they can't balance a budget. Thank the Daley family for a terrible deal, years back, that had the amount of escalators built into it. That toothpaste will never go back into the tube.

All that said, in the long run, staying in the state and appeasing the sprawling population north and west will yield the better results. Ultimately, it's when the McCaskey's plan on selling the team that will determine the outcome.

One final fyi....they still haven't finalized a location in Hammond and NOTHING had been tested with regards to it being environmentally accepted. That is a chore and an expense. They have absolutely no clue what's under the ground. In Arlington Heights, the land that they currently own....it's passed every test and it's been already paid for.

They have another meeting with the State of Illinois next week. Let's see what comes of it.
 
#65      
it seems to be working okay in Foxborough, Mass

I question the viability of an "entertainment district" around it, as I dont think its working in Rosemont by the B1G offices, but a profitable Bears stadium to attract other football games, and other events from Feb-July is certainly possible to be a success.

Most Bear , Bull and Blackhawk fans dont live anywhere near downtown Chicago.
On the contrary the Foxborough site has been considered to be holding back the Patriots for decades and there have been multiple efforts to leave.

Downtown Boston is a near-impossible place to site a facility that big though, plus it's not the nucleus of the region in the same way downtown Chicago is, so that never went anywhere.

I gotta be honest, the difficulty of getting to Soldier Field is one of the most overrated parts of this conversation, and with relatively limited infrastructural improvements it would be better still.
 
#66      
80% of the season ticket holders are from the North, Northwest and Western Suburbs.
This can only possibly be true with an incredibly loose definition of "Western".

There are tons of Bears ST holders who live south of 290/88. Naperville, Downer's Grove, Orland Park, etc.

You are right that it's an overwhelmingly suburban crowd, more so than any of the other local teams for sure.

Arlington Heights is a stones throw away from Schaumburg, Mt. Prospect, Rolling Meadows, Barrington, etc. It's also flanked by 53/290, 90, 355, 294, which covers the entire region, then you have Metra(Mass Transit) right there. You also have O'Hare airport right which is flanked by an enormous amount of hotels. There's no shortage of hospitality that's already there!
I mean c'mon man, O'Hare is not *right there*. And that hotel infrastructure is already supporting the airport. I don't think your typical Bears game generates a ton of hotel traffic. But Final Fours and Taylor Swift concerts do, and that's a huge problem.

That's ultimately my thing, I think the dream of this being *the* 12-month entertainment destination of the region is going to really disappoint.

If you bury this in Indiana, you've moved it 20 miles FURTHER away from than the portion of the fanbase that actually buys the product.
Totally agree with that. Hammond would be a disaster for all parties involved.

Now, the issue with Arlington Heights is the amount of infrastructure costs that would be associated with it, thus the reason for the $900M push. It is a very well to do area, but it's an area that's older because they've resisted improvements. They've wanted to maintain its "charm". They freak out if ComEd comes in to trim a tree that's close to a power line. The stadium would be surrounded by Arlington Heights Road, Algonquin Road and Euclid Avenue. The streets would have to be widened, there would have to be additional exit/entrance ramps coming from the expressway, etc. The Bears have already paid for the survey to be done on the traffic patterns, deemed it to be ok.....with 900M infrastructure help from the state.
I mean, it's a low density suburb. And what it IS close to is Woodfield/Schaumburg. There's no demand to make that area a commercial hub. The racetrack worked there because it was a chill Metra-heavy crowd and the site had plenty of room for the horses.

Hammond is a better deal for the Bears in the short term.
Leaving the politics out of it, which really don't matter here as much as everyone wants them to, so many commentators have this cheeky glee at being able to fire off partisan takes in a sports context, why on god's green earth would the McCaskey's or any NFL owners be focused on the short term?

You're absolutely correct that they are focused on the short term, but that's the industry-wide cancer that's poisoning the golden goose of America's love affair with high-profile team sports.

A new stadium for the Chicago Bears is an opportunity to touch eternity. When they're digging out the ruins of this society, they're going to wonder why we stopped thinking that way.
 
#68      
This can only possibly be true with an incredibly loose definition of "Western".

There are tons of Bears ST holders who live south of 290/88. Naperville, Downer's Grove, Orland Park, etc.

You are right that it's an overwhelmingly suburban crowd, more so than any of the other local teams for sure.


I mean c'mon man, O'Hare is not *right there*. And that hotel infrastructure is already supporting the airport. I don't think your typical Bears game generates a ton of hotel traffic. But Final Fours and Taylor Swift concerts do, and that's a huge problem.

That's ultimately my thing, I think the dream of this being *the* 12-month entertainment destination of the region is going to really disappoint.


Totally agree with that. Hammond would be a disaster for all parties involved.


I mean, it's a low density suburb. And what it IS close to is Woodfield/Schaumburg. There's no demand to make that area a commercial hub. The racetrack worked there because it was a chill Metra-heavy crowd and the site had plenty of room for the horses.


Leaving the politics out of it, which really don't matter here as much as everyone wants them to, so many commentators have this cheeky glee at being able to fire off partisan takes in a sports context, why on god's green earth would the McCaskey's or any NFL owners be focused on the short term?

You're absolutely correct that they are focused on the short term, but that's the industry-wide cancer that's poisoning the golden goose of America's love affair with high-profile team sports.

A new stadium for the Chicago Bears is an opportunity to touch eternity. When they're digging out the ruins of this society, they're going to wonder why we stopped thinking that way.
Outstanding post!

George McCaskey has wanted to sell this franchise for decades. They didn't out of respect for Virginia. Now that she's passed, they are going to build this stadium, which will put the value over 10B, then they'll sell it immediately.

The McCaskey's are asset wealthy, but aren't cash wealthy. Once they sell that team, that will flip.
 
#69      
Outstanding post!

George McCaskey has wanted to sell this franchise for decades. They didn't out of respect for Virginia. Now that she's passed, they are going to build this stadium, which will put the value over 10B, then they'll sell it immediately.

The McCaskey's are asset wealthy, but aren't cash wealthy. Once they sell that team, that will flip.
But they're going to screw up the stadium, and the team would be worth more to a buyer with the deep pockets and the savvy to do the build properly.
 
#70      
Hammond would be a disaster for all parties involved.

Hammond has the greatest chance to completely reshape and reinvigorate the Chicagoland Area for generations.

We are not talking the old Hammond/Gary of the past 50 years. We are talking about the next 50 years where a new Bears stadium and all the new infrastructure and new building will create an entirely new wing of the greater Chicago Metro area.

A new super stadium. New entertainment and restaurant venues. New housing to house all the former Ilinois residents who are already tired of the high taxation and government dysfunction and already moving into Indiana. Proximity to a great Dunes National Park and lots of Chicago-area people who already own second homes in Southwestern Michigan.

The Lakefront site and the Arlington site are tired retreads locked into the past. Land-locked areas with a limited future. Already there are new rail transit lines being laid down in Northwest Indiana. And we've already got the South Shore serving the Hammond/Gary area all day long. And a Gary Airport that is begging for lots more traffic to serve an underserved area (Southwest Air... are you looking?)

Hammond is a fresh new future. If the Bears (and COME ON... White Sox) are smart enough to lead the way.
 
#71      
The Arizona Cardinals tried this experience when they decided to build their stadium in Glendale, AZ. The West Valley of Phoenix metro is similar to the south burbs/NW Indiana in that it's just not really where the money is at. In fact, the NHL Coyotes ALSO built their stadium adjacent to the Cardinals stadium.

All of that was part of a huge entertainment complex called Westgate. Neither team did particularly well by this, and in fact the Yotes did so poorly being so removed from majority of their fanbase in the East Valley (Scottsdale, Tempe, Chandler, Gilbert etc, which is where much of the real money is), that they moved to flippin' Utah.

Westgate has done only OKAY but it took a couple decades, but the potential of the Cardinals have never been reached and their stadium location has been part of what's held them back. The Bears need to not make the same mistake, but of course I have little confidence that they won't.
 
#72      
Hammond has the greatest chance to completely reshape and reinvigorate the Chicagoland Area for generations.

We are not talking the old Hammond/Gary of the past 50 years. We are talking about the next 50 years where a new Bears stadium and all the new infrastructure and new building will create an entirely new wing of the greater Chicago Metro area.

A new super stadium. New entertainment and restaurant venues. New housing to house all the former Ilinois residents who are already tired of the high taxation and government dysfunction and already moving into Indiana. Proximity to a great Dunes National Park and lots of Chicago-area people who already own second homes in Southwestern Michigan.

The Lakefront site and the Arlington site are tired retreads locked into the past. Land-locked areas with a limited future. Already there are new rail transit lines being laid down in Northwest Indiana. And we've already got the South Shore serving the Hammond/Gary area all day long. And a Gary Airport that is begging for lots more traffic to serve an underserved area (Southwest Air... are you looking?)

Hammond is a fresh new future. If the Bears (and COME ON... White Sox) are smart enough to lead the way.
Tv Show Comedy GIF by HULU
 
#73      
The Arizona Cardinals tried this experience when they decided to build their stadium in Glendale, AZ. The West Valley of Phoenix metro is similar to the south burbs/NW Indiana in that it's just not really where the money is at. In fact, the NHL Coyotes ALSO built their stadium adjacent to the Cardinals stadium.

All of that was part of a huge entertainment complex called Westgate. Neither team did particularly well by this, and in fact the Yotes did so poorly being so removed from majority of their fanbase in the East Valley (Scottsdale, Tempe, Chandler, Gilbert etc, which is where much of the real money is), that they moved to flippin' Utah.

Chicago(land) is a traditional Eastern-type city that developed a strong downtown in the 19th Century and steadily grew outward from a central heart (and still is). It maintains a powerful Loop and healthy numbers of people who are used to commuting all the time on public transit to add overhall cohesiveness to the region.

Phoenix is a Western city that’s grown the most only in recent years due to Snowbirds tired of the cold and Californians who want out of there. The Phoenix Metro area has no real civic heart like Chicago and is just adding developments of people around the edges who keep filling in former empty desert areas. There is no sense of Phoenix-style identity because it is a just cluster of towns all working on their agendas.

The Cardinals do not have a kind of rabid generation fan base like the Bears. Few places do. The Cardinals as a franchise are one of those who have moved several times in their history already. No roots like the Bears have. And many of the sports teams that visit Arizona have almost or more fans cheering for them as there are Arizona fans cheering for theirs. (Similar to some LA-area teams).

Coyotes could have made it with more rational and sensible ownership. The former Chicago-area people alone in Arizona could have made it a successful franchise. But they did not have a solid long-term plan for franchise success and they were just as chaotic on the ice. They are on much more solid ground now in Utah and they are already thriving more than they ever did in Arizona. It would have been nice to have a successful NHL team in Arizona. But they needed better ownership.

Also, the Bears have another motivated State right next door involved that is eager and motoivated to make a new location a success. Arizona has no such nearby motivated State.

The Arizona sports-franchise development plans had a bit of success but they just did not have the necessary civic ingredients and area history that Chicago/Hammond have.
 
#74      
This can only possibly be true with an incredibly loose definition of "Western".

There are tons of Bears ST holders who live south of 290/88. Naperville, Downer's Grove, Orland Park, etc.

You are right that it's an overwhelmingly suburban crowd, more so than any of the other local teams for sure.


I mean c'mon man, O'Hare is not *right there*. And that hotel infrastructure is already supporting the airport. I don't think your typical Bears game generates a ton of hotel traffic. But Final Fours and Taylor Swift concerts do, and that's a huge problem.

That's ultimately my thing, I think the dream of this being *the* 12-month entertainment destination of the region is going to really disappoint.


Totally agree with that. Hammond would be a disaster for all parties involved.


I mean, it's a low density suburb. And what it IS close to is Woodfield/Schaumburg. There's no demand to make that area a commercial hub. The racetrack worked there because it was a chill Metra-heavy crowd and the site had plenty of room for the horses.


Leaving the politics out of it, which really don't matter here as much as everyone wants them to, so many commentators have this cheeky glee at being able to fire off partisan takes in a sports context, why on god's green earth would the McCaskey's or any NFL owners be focused on the short term?

You're absolutely correct that they are focused on the short term, but that's the industry-wide cancer that's poisoning the golden goose of America's love affair with high-profile team sports.

A new stadium for the Chicago Bears is an opportunity to touch eternity. When they're digging out the ruins of this society, they're going to wonder why we stopped thinking that way.
I thought Downers Grove and Naperville are great examples of western suburbs, right along the 290/88 corridor
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back