Naperville has proven it can fill the stands with a roaring crowd. I believe that should carry an enormous amount of weight when deciding this thing. It would get my vote.
roaring crowd?? Yea, right. Section 8 was the only thing roaring in Naperville, and that is primarily populated by City people. The rest of that place was dead as a doornail and filled with soccer mommies. I know, 'cuz I made the mistake last year of paying for expensive seats and sitting with those people. The land available in Nippleville is most likely in the Will County portion. Add an extra 15 minutes to the trip. What does that make the Fire's target market? DeKalb? I'm sure Nippleville would love to have the Fire, but the question is, does the Fire really want them? I hope not.
Naperville is not ideal, but if the Fire had an actual SSS with real grass I would go. I would prefer to stay in the city, but if the best deal was in the burbs and it helped the long term health of the franchise, so be it. I'm sure someone would continue to sponsor busses out to the burbs. For me, Gingers Ale House is a comfortable kneewalk away.
After being skeptical of N-ville, I think it has been a pretty good short term fix (except for the plastic). Even the lack of beer has been ok because of the close proximity to restaurants and bars. That has been the x factor that has made Naperville tolerable in my mind. Moving to a sprawling complex, miles from anything but cookie cutter subdivisions would be difficult to stomach. There was a little Wrigleyville feeling to the last two years that would be missing if we moved to a 50 acre site. I vote: 1. a Downtown chicago site; 2. a close in suburb with good public transit; 3. a suburb with good Metra access and a stadium close to the business district. For example, if it is possible to work a deal with NCC to permanently build out the stadium with a big grass field and 20,000 seats. Probably not.
I second! I also agree with Chris M and the Wrigleyville feel of playing at NCC. that's why I was so excited about the temporary move last year. I knew that on game day Fire fans would take over the streets and restaurants/bars. It has been very cool. I'd still vote for a Naperville site but it would lose something not being downtown. Ironically though, Soldier Field presents the same waste-land type feel. If they by some chance end up in the city I certainly hope it's in a location that feels more like downtown Naperville than SF on the lake.
If we do go with a Suburban site, I really hope we don't go for a site isolated amongst 50 youth soccer fields. Having extra fields is nice and all, and there should be at least a couple auxillary training fields for community use, but if it comes down to that we HAVE to be in the burbs, I sure hope we're in or near a downtown part of a burb, or as part of an economic development, as well as near public transit. It would do this team a great disservice to have it as a far-flung stadium admidst a mass of fields between two expressways nowhere near train or El or shop or restaurant. A GREAT disservice.
Then we would be nothing more than . . . [shudder] [dry heave] [shudder] [cold sweat] [shudder] DALLAS, or should I say Friscass
Yeah, that's a great point and basically how I feel too. The way Dallas is doing it is fine and all and serves as a model for others but I'm hopeful that the Fire can come up with something that has a little different, more urban/downtown, feel. Whether it's in the city or a burb.
i'm rather indifferent on where the stadium should be located... i understand everyone's thoughts... but i'm 3 hours south... so they don't really affect me however, i just want to point out that it appears to me that the mass sendout is working...
I think you guys may be misreading what's going on in Frisco. The stadium is going to be part of a development. It's also going to have a lot of fields and such, but it's literally right across the street from all sorts of shopping and condo type residential areas. It isn't DOWNTOWN by our definition of the word, but it is for the metroplex area.
Actually, I didn't know that. That makes it even more impressive for them. Thanks for the info. Hopefully we'll be able to do something similar.
I think the idea that many are trying to get at is that there should be some sense of community around the stadium. Going to a game at Wrigley or Vicente Calderon in Madrid give a similar picture--community around the stadium. You have bars near there where people are hanging out before the game. You have fan groups who traditionally meet in these bars before the game and therefore before they go into the park together. These fan groups come back to those same bars and watch the games on TV. Soldier Field, by comparison, is a bit sterile, as Chris M. pointed out. Stadiums work best if they can be part of a community. I think one difference that I see between the Frisco plan and, say, a Wrigley-ville type plan is the type of city we're talking about. Dallas is one of those really modern cities that was built with the automobile in mind. Same with LA. These, and many others, were built knowing that people were willing to drive long distances for the priviledge of living in their own single family homes. Chicago is an interesting mix of the old world style city and the new auto city. We have a great downtown, and neighborhoods. Just like Madrid, if you don't have a car there isn't much of a problem because there is public transit, and where that doesn't go you probably can get close enough that a cab ride won't break your budget. Chicago has about 2.? million residents (it's close to 3M). On the other hand, the metro area, which has been built out further and further since the advent of the car, is not centralized. This has created communities which have poor communication with any place other than within itself or to the city. 294 helps, but isn't much more than a panacea. A result of this division is that we also end up having two kinds of fan. We have the city fan, who is used to enclosed spaces and loud noises, and gets a lot of energy from both of these, is (likely) more international, and we have a suburban fan who is a bit more reticent (whether he wants to admit it or not). Any stadium built, I hope, will reflect this a bit to take into consideration both constituencies. My conclusion from this is that it would be nice to see a stadium in the city, maybe somewhere between the Lake and Oak Park, Foster and 55th. Then have, like Real Madrid does, a training facility in the suburbs, which has fields to promote soccer. The training facility would have a mini stadium for soccer tournaments. By doing this the Fire would have helped the suburbs, promoted soccer in general, received good publicity, and have a permanent training site. Plus, everyone would be inconvenienced in the same way in terms of getting to games. It could be in a community, and thus benefit the community by bringing in plenty of foot and car traffic. The city dwellers look for certain things in a community, and will likely be there for a short time prior to and after the game, while the suburbanites are more likely to make a day of it in the community due to the cost of parking in Chicago and the length of time it takes to get to the game. This is partly contingent on finding/building a nice community (otherwise we end up in a Comiskey situation, which is as sterile for community as Soldier Field).
If it is in Naperville, I can't go to many games, and I can't send my customers flex pak tickets - They are in the City. Sorry, but subtract about $500 per year from my account. I only paid for Naperville this year and last because it was temporary. I don't think I am alone.
I paid for full season tickets to Naperville last year and this one for the same reason I bought them 1998-2001 at SF because I am a Chicago Fire fan. I will buy season tickets to the Fire no matter where they go in the metro area.
I think some of the complaints about Naperville would disappear if we had beer. But, if we get a suburban stadium in a 'sterile' situation like Soldier Field, then even with beer we have what I'd consider a poor situation. I don't like going to Naperville, but I could commit to an official stadium there where it currently is located because of the proximity to the downtown area. Obviously we'd have to get that specific land from the school so we could put in grass, take out the track, add beer, etc. I don't think that's possible though. Big Phil needs to swoop in and buy the Clark/Roosevelt Development area and build the next Wrigleyville. The Fire could lose money and he'd make a bundle on condos.
Naperville is only in the metro area to those in the Western Suburbs. Not the North or South. How many Soccer fans travel from Long Island to Jersey? We all have our own versions of a Metro area. It is called a 45 min. drive time without traffic.
What he said. I've been Flex for this season and last. I'll be purchasing full season tickets next year with the return to Soldier Field. If we went somewhere else far afield permanently, I'd have to reconsider my ticket purchases (still would buy some -- just probably not a season package).
Big Phil needs to swoop in and buy the Clark/Roosevelt Development area and build the next Wrigleyville. The Fire could lose money and he'd make a bundle on condos. [/B][/QUOTE] Great location, but Daley's already ahead of you. Last time I checked, that area's already condo--a 24 Dominicks/Jewel (can't remember which one) even. Come to think of it, Daley himself lives not far from there, on Indiana and 14th. So much for his Bridgeport roots... Philipao better hurry up, then--the city's been going "condo" for some time now (well, at least the northside, anyway..).
The land might be sold, but nothing's there right now. It's a big plot just west of Clark, south of Roosevelt. I know it's a pipe dream.