http://www.dailyherald.com/dupage/main_story.asp?intID=3772258 Naperville has the resources to get this done. I'd keep an eye on this one for sure.
More good news is that it's not just Naperville that's interested. As the quote at the end said, "Most communities would be interested for the people it would bring, the recognition and the spin-off economic development." Maybe the Fire will actually get some choices for the best location and/or finances. That'd represent a helluva turnaround from the situation they once found themselves in, not even being allowed to get access to land to pay for their own stadium.
"When they heard the professional soccer team is searching for a permanent suburban stadium site, Naperville leaders jumped. The team sold out its last few games in Naperville in 2002. When it came time to renew the city's agreement with the Fire for the 2003 season, Naperville leaders praised how the Fire's management has handled the team's stay here." More proof that Peter Wilt is MLS' best GM, You wouldn't want to come up here to New England any time soon, would you, Mr Wilt? Pretty please?
A bit silly to put it in Naperville, IMO. I would think it would have to be more centrally located based on the suburban landscape.
The genius of the Naperville move is precisely what's taking place now. The move was what I've heard salesmen call a puppy dog close. Say a tech salesman wants to sell a top line printer to a company. He offers the target a week free to test it out. When the week is up, if the target doesn't want to buy, he has to tell all his employees why he's going to take away their new "puppy dog." In other words, now that Naperville sees the advantages, it doesn't want to lose them. And word gets around. So the Fire is in a lot better position to find a home now as opposed to when they were trying everything to find one.
Naperville is a fine location. A bit more east towards 294 would be better no doubt if you were committed to the burbs, but Naperville is as convenient to the Northwest and Southwest suburbs as is downtown Chicago. And it is more convenient for the western burbs obviously. There's a huge population base out there and if you are THE suburban team you are really carving out a niche for yourself.
Naperville is really liking the Fire being there. They have it creeping into every day conversation. They treat the Fire now like they would treat a baseball team. (Very well). It would be a great place.
I'm not positive, but as I was getting ready this morning, I *thought* I heard Mr. Wilt tell the CLTV reporter at last night's game that the ideal location (excepting the city, I assume) would be somewhere between Naperville and Chicago.
This may be of use to you then in regard to Chicago and future stadium ownership. Chicago aim for own stadium in 2007. By Kenn Tomasch.
Living in Naperville I know that the community likes it. Many of my neighbors (in perfect suburbia) are taking advantage of the opportunity to go to games with their families without having to worry about going to Chicago and back again. There is space around here too. I think the community would support it.
Yeah, but I think that if they want to treat us like a baseball team, it might be nice if they just got a baseball team. It's not like the Northern League would turn them down if they had a stadium.
Did you guys hear the atmosphere at last nights game??? NO!?!?! Why?? Because there wasn't one. You could hear a pin drop during the game last night. If that is the kind of stadium the team wants then go ahead. I'll go watch a team with some real balls of fans, like DC United etc etc. naperville is just too far from the city. I don't care if they put it right on the expressway. It needs to be closer to the city, that is the biggest and best fan base end of story!!!!
Yeah now if you can just get your family and friends to stop sitting on their hands and stuffing their face with pizza all game and actually cheer I may go for it. Until then I am not going to agree to the Fire management apeasing one extremely dificult town to get to in Naperville, just because you guys let us throw up a stadium in the back of a small college. We still are playing second fiddle to a girls division II track team. Please!!! On top of that we are paying more per game to run the team in Naperville than at Soldiers Field. Sorry Naperville is not a town for the Fire on a longterm level. No way in their right minds would they put it there. Unless they are on acid.
The Fire will do what makes the most economic sense. And a new stadium in the western suburbs would at the moment appear much more likely than one in the city. The Fire would love to have vociferous crowds. But they'd love to have sell outs at high price points even more. As for this notion that Naperville is more expensive. Sure, for now. But a new stadium anywhere is going to have to make more economic sense than Soldier Field. If it doesn't, why move? Obviously they think it will make more sense. That's why they're looking.
It's not really true that a soccer-specific stadium necessarily makes more sense than Soldier Field. In order for the figures to work out, the town in which the stadium is being built has to pick up a significant chunk of the tab. Merely giving away free land wouldn't do the trick. As for Naperville, I have mixed feelings. If the Fire can get a real stadium of their own, that would obviously be cool. If they get the kind of "public-private partnership" they need to be financially viable, that's good too. But it's personally unpleasant for me, so long as I live in the far north suburbs, to even attempt to make it to Naperville for Fire matches. There's no question that Naperville crowds are significantly tamer than Chicago crowds. Good on the Fire for making a deal, but I'd be much more likely to break out the bubbly if they were relocating to someplace more generally accessible.
Yes, Naperville is farther away from the city than most would like. But it's not that much further from downtown than many current or planned MLS stadiums: Naperville - Chicago: 31 miles Foxboro - Boston: 33 miles Frisco - Dallas: 28 miles Carson - LA: 19 miles
It just so happens that places like New England and Southern California are very much densely populated. So the Foxboro and Carson situations can, conceivably, work out because there are so many affluent people living in those areas that teams can still draw. Same with the Metros if they can get Harrison off the ground. So the question for the Naperville plan is whether the population is there regardless of distance to make sense to build the SSS.
Have you ever BEEN to Foxboro? The south shore and environs are about as densely populated as most of New Hampshire. DuPage county (where Naperville is) is much more densely populated than the area around Foxboro.
Actually, it is exactly 26 miles from the Naperville Road exit to the post office in downtown Chicago. Naperville is the second most populous city in Illinois. Look, I too think being a bit closer to the city would be ideal from a commuter standpoint. But this notion that Naperville is a horrible option is just patently false from a financial standpoint. They can get butts in seats there. Ideally you'd be in the Oak Brook area where 294 and 88 meet. But Naperville isn't a horrible local.
Actually, according to the latest census, Aurora is the second most populous city in Illinois (142,990 as opposed to 128,358 for Naperville; Chicago is listed at 2,896,016 (just the city, not the burbs)).
Wrong, or at least missing the point. Carson is a decent blue collar lower-middle class area. I doubt that very many Carson residents qualify as "affluent." There are a heck of a lot more affluent people living within a 5 mile radius of Cardinal Stadium than there are within a 5 mile radius of Victoria Street. LAG will prosper (if they do) because people are willing to travel to Carson, not because there is a fan base there. The question is, would Chicagoans be as willing to get in their cars and drive 25 miles as Angelinos are? For many reasons, cultural and historic, Southern Californians are much more accustomed to driving longer distances for recreational events than are Chicagoans. My guess: If Fire would move to the burbs they would prosper. The cost would be that they would abandon a large part of their city-based fans and swap them for a suburban fan base. Given the loyalty and support shown by the existing fans, I would hate to see that happen.
The Loyalty and support we see from Section 8 and other (albeit misguided) Fire fans would travel to Naperville for a new firehouse, no?
Well, this depends on the individual. For me, so long as they're in the Chicago area, I'm there so long as I live here and I'm not unavoidably out of town. But, I own a car, I'm used to driving it around to go places, and I have enough money to deal with any ancillary costs related to following the Fire around. A lot of guys downtown have no cars, let alone a license to drive one. Taxis and limos are kind of expensive here, especially if you're travelling from the city. So if it isn't on mass transit, it gets pretty difficult to get there for these people. Even the current situation (which is good transit-wise) isn't ideal for some people, because there are a couple of walks involved (there's no el or subway stop at union station, since it's kind of west of the loop). It's not far by any means, but it does factor into time considerations, and you end up with that each direction, plus the train out to Naperville (35 minutes in the best scenario) and the walk to the stadium. Then you have the transit wait, time spent picking up tickets, etc etc. It's manageable on weekends, depending on your schedule, but on weekdays it can be a real hassle. If you put the stadium somewhere that transit didn't interface as well or better than it does in Naperville, you can pretty much write off a lot of the people who take the trains out to Naperville as is. There are also a group of fans who say they are only willing to put up with any suburban stadium situation as a stopgap measure. Putting that resolve to the test would probably be bad PR, IMHO.
what? I can tell you guys that putting the team permanently in Naperville is far worse than the Carson and Foxboro situations. I have been to all areas and I can tell you, from experience, that Foxboro and Carson are more easily accessible than Naperville. People in the city of Chicago are much less willing to travel out to the suburbs for sporting events than the people in Boston and LA. I have yet to make it to a Fire game since they moved out of Soldier Field. Granted, I'm not a Fire suporter, but if they were still in the city I would make it to the games against DC and Columbus.