Chicago USL - 2020

Discussion in 'USL Expansion' started by newtex, Nov 21, 2017.

  1. newtex

    newtex Member+

    May 25, 2005
    Houston
    Club:
    Houston Dynamo
    The first USL expansion team for 2020 has been announced: Chicago

    http://www.uslsoccer.com/news_article/show/859201?referrer_id=2333971

    The team would play at a sports-entertainment complex in Chicago's Lincoln Park neighborhood on the near north side along the Chicago River. The complex is also bidding to be the location of the new Amazon HQ2.

    They are planning a 20,000 seat stadium with a retractable roof that would also be used for concerts and other events.

    This a very early rendering of what the stadium might look like:

    [​IMG]
     
    C-Rob repped this.
  2. C-Rob

    C-Rob Member

    May 31, 2000
    1. I would not be surprised if this bid is contingent on being awarded the Amazon 2 headquarters.

    2. I find it interesting that USL would welcome a Chicago team, despite there being an MLS team in the same city (yeah, I know the Fire are in Bridgeview). Given that USL allegedly told the potential San Diego bid that they did not want them because of the San Diego MLS bid, I find that interesting. I know the situations are not quite the same, but I find it interesting nonetheless.

    3. The stadium in thatimage in no way has a retractable roof.
     
  3. thekorean

    thekorean Member

    Jan 10, 2017
    Club:
    New York City FC
    Is that bid legitimate? 20,000 seat stadium in a better neighborhood than where Fire plays?

    I don't believe it. What will MLS make of this?
     
    hipityhop repped this.
  4. jeffconn

    jeffconn Member

    Jul 25, 2004
    Norfolk, VA, USA
    Club:
    Hampton Roads Piranhas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    msilverstein47 repped this.
  5. CharlottetownFC

    Sep 2, 2015
    Club:
    Charlotte
    I've read that the bid is not contingent on landing Amazon.
     
  6. Sandon Mibut

    Sandon Mibut Member+

    Feb 13, 2001
  7. EPJr

    EPJr Member+

    Los Angeles FC
    United States
    Mar 21, 2009
    Richmond VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I WILL LEAVE THIS HERE W/O COMMENT
    [​IMG]
     
  8. SoccerPrime

    SoccerPrime Moderator
    Staff Member

    All of them
    Apr 14, 2003
    Club:
    Real Salt Lake
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Where did you get that logo? I did see that the Chicago USL investors derailed a plan for development in the Billions.
     
  9. EPJr

    EPJr Member+

    Los Angeles FC
    United States
    Mar 21, 2009
    Richmond VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    USL Reddit
     
  10. thekorean

    thekorean Member

    Jan 10, 2017
    Club:
    New York City FC
    What is the end game here? Why spend so much money for an MLS stadium for a USL team?
     
  11. CMeszt

    CMeszt Member+

    Farewell Sweet Prince
    Jan 9, 2004
    Gentrification's Apex.
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Well it's on prime, prime land. Acquisition alone cost the developers major $$ but it's one of two or three major undeveloped sites in the central city, so they'll make it back and then some. Transit is ok, good but not great, and traffic is already atrocious in that area, but there's reason to be excited.

    There's been a fairly detailed discussion about it over in the Fire board.
     
  12. Brian in Boston

    Brian in Boston Member+

    Jun 17, 2004
    MA & CA, USA
    Time to "pump the brakes" on plans for a USL Championship side to set-up shop within the City of Chicago.

    In the face of public opposition, including pushback from a Chicago alderman, developer Sterling Bay has scrapped plans for a 20,000-seat stadium within its Lincoln Yards mixed-use project.

    Alderman expected to reject 20,000-seat soccer stadium proposal on North Side

    Lincoln Yards plan will scrap 20,000-seat stadium, Live Nation entertainment district

    Chicago Alderman Brian Hopkins, who represents the ward in which Lincoln Yards would be sited, had been indicating that he would come down against the inclusion of a stadium in the development. Hopkins was skeptical about whether the traffic infrastructure in the Lincoln Park and Bucktown neighborhoods would be capable of supporting a 20,000-seat venue. On Monday of this week, Hopkins sent an e-mail to his constituents that cited a public survey about the Lincoln Yards proposal. In the e-mail, Hopkins said that 53% of respondents to the survey were opposed to the stadium, 25% were undecided about the venue's inclusion in the development, and 23% supported its construction.

    Yesterday, Hopkins sent out a follow-up e-mail in which he informed constituents that he had told Sterling Bay that he did not support the proposed stadium being part of the 70-acre, $5-billion project. Further, he stated that he had let the developers know that he wanted a planned entertainment district featuring venues operated by Live Nation to be replaced by independently-owned and operated restaurants, clubs, theaters and performance spaces scattered throughout the development.

    In a statement later on Tuesday, Sterling Bay spokeswoman Sarah Hamilton said:

    "While much of the feedback has been positive, Alderman Hopkins and residents have been very clear: they do not want a stadium. And we want to say, 'We heard you loud and clear.' We have removed the stadium and broken up the entertainment district, allowing for assorted smaller venues throughout Lincoln Yards where all independent music operators will have the opportunity to participate."

    It is now unclear how - indeed, whether - Sterling Bay will attempt to proceed with plans to bring a USL franchise to Chicago.

    Following the news of the stadium plan being scrapped, a spokesman for the USL sent out an e-mail in which the league claimed to be dedicated to moving forward with the establishment of a team in Chicago. According to the USL's Ryan Madden:

    "We remain committed to bringing a USL franchise to downtown Chicago. Stadium projects are of course inherently complicated, but there is a huge appetite for professional soccer in Chicago and we look forward to working with Sterling Bay to deliver a club - and stadium - that the community can rally around and be proud of."

    That said, Sterling Bay will need to find a new majority owner for said club, as the Chicago Cubs' Tom Ricketts - originally tabbed for that role - is apparently no longer involved in the venture. In the wake of the announcements by Alderman Hopkins and Sterling Bay's Sarah Hamilton, Ricketts family spokesman Dennis Culloton said:

    "The Ricketts family's potential involvement was focused on the soccer team and contingent on city approvals. While we are disappointed the concept is no longer included in the master plan, we understand the ambitious Lincoln Yards project needs to move forward."

    My gut instinct tells me that, regardless of pronouncements by the league to the contrary, the USL-to-Chicago effort is dead. At least any such attempt with Sterling Bay and Tom Ricketts involved.

    One thing is certain: Andrew Hauptman, lead investor/operator of Major League Soccer's Chicago Fire, can breathe a sigh of relief.
     
  13. SoccerPrime

    SoccerPrime Moderator
    Staff Member

    All of them
    Apr 14, 2003
    Club:
    Real Salt Lake
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #13 SoccerPrime, Jan 10, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2019
    I don’t think MLS was particularly worried, especially after taking on addditional well funded minority partners last year. It’s all moot now anyways.
     
  14. hipityhop

    hipityhop Member

    New Mexico United
    United States
    Jan 10, 1999
    Mission TX
    Club:
    SønderjyskE
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    What's the chance of Ricketts getting a north side MLS expansion team?
     
  15. SoccerPrime

    SoccerPrime Moderator
    Staff Member

    All of them
    Apr 14, 2003
    Club:
    Real Salt Lake
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Not likely. The article seems to indicate he’s out of the soccer business. Typical bait and switch anyway.
     
    hipityhop repped this.
  16. thekorean

    thekorean Member

    Jan 10, 2017
    Club:
    New York City FC
    I suspect it was thrown in with no actual intention to build it, so in an attempt to "compromise" he can simply take it out and the deal doesn't seem so bad for the opponents.
     
    hipityhop repped this.
  17. ButlerBob

    ButlerBob Moderator
    Staff Member

    Nov 13, 2001
    Evanston, IL
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think the chances of them bringing the stadium back is very unlikely. Traffic in that area is already bad and this would have made it even more crazy. But this is Chicago, so there is always a chance that it come up again.
     
  18. JDogindy

    JDogindy Member

    Nov 20, 2014
    Club:
    Indy Eleven
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    There's always them moving in to Bridgeview to fill the vacancy once the Fire move out, although with different owners and a different philosophy. I doubt Ricketts was actually inclined to this project beyond building a venue to make extra income.
     
    aetraxx7 repped this.

Share This Page