Ok, does anybody have a link as to what the new Soldier Field is supposed to look like when it's finished, seating configuration/adaption for Chicago Fire needs (i.e., no upper deck seating, etc.), pitch specifications, advantages from a fan perspective (less end zone seating, better sightlines, etc.)? Where will Section 8 be? I think we should get prime seats, no doubt! I thought the old Soldier Field was a dump, a hugely cavernous piece of ***************. I know that the new designers received flack for their ridiculous design (whereby the new stadium drarfs the old colonades, which are to remain). But that was just the outside view. From the inside, will the new stadium have the same problems, or will it be like Gillette/CGI Field? Any links?
http://www.chicagobears.com/facility/index.cfm?cont_id=33687 Some of the seats will be removable to allow for wider soccer pitch.
Thanks for the link. At first sight, why does remind of the place where the NFL's Carolina Panthers play? Maybe it's the "bowl-like" configuration. I presume the upper-deck, nosebleed seats are superflous for our purposes and probably will not be for sale? On a positve note, at least it looks like there will be far less "end zone" seats, anyway. Oh, and the fact that this will actually be an "all-seater".
Do you know if they will be removing them for each game, or will it be a wide field until Bears pre-season begins and then narrow for the rest of the season?
Sorry, slow day at work; looking at the new Soldier Field pics again, does anyone know what the seating capacity will be if the last upper tier of the stadium is not used/blocked off? 35,000? They seem to take up a huge chunk of the seats--probably so they can "sandwich" the sky boxes in between. It would be a very good idea for the Fire to not sell any seats in that area--yes, yes, this may prove to be an academic question, but it will definitely create a better atmosphere if all the fans are centrally located in the better, lower-level seats! In that regard, wonder if this is going to be like the Comiskey Park, and it's now "infamous", steep, upper deck seats that have helped to give it a bad name and eliminate the charm and cozyness of the ball park?
To answer some of the questions posed in the last few threads: I had read somewhere in the fall that the new SF pitch will narrow when the Bears season starts. Down sized capacity can be figured like this: The PSL areas are colored in and seat 29,000. http://www.chicagobears.com/facility/index.cfm?cont_id=95188 Substitute the field level end zone sections for the D section end zone PSL seats. Tarp over the F and H category seats on the west side. . . . . . and the pie shaped sections at the ends of the upper decks on the east side. . . . . . and that should bring seating down to about 25-26k. Also worth noting is the last 7-8 rows of the lower east side decks and the entire second deck on the west side are covered by the decks above them.
Any chance the Fire will be able to play any of its late season games in the renovated Soldier Field in 2003? The building is supposed to be ready by August, correct?
I just posted this on the Fire list earlier today, but as far as I hear (of course, subject to change) they will try to play some of the October games there, playoffs (if any) and a 're-inaugural' friendly game against Morelia.
Is usage of the new stadium for the Fire going to be another bad deal finacially for the team? Isn't a soccer specific stadium being talked about at all in Chicago so the team can keep most of the money?
Im not sure what they are exactly but PW mentioned in that interview that there are going to be new revenue sources once they get back to SF.
I think he said they get a share of parking,concessions, merchandise sales and suite sales, which they did not get in old lease.I'm not sure if the actual rent is less or not.
new soldier field = big bag of ugly Though the lack of beer in Naperville (and the cops) is kinda wearing on me.
Is it really that ugly on the inside? I mean, come on folks...we have our own opinions about the exterior, but inside is it a whole lot different than Seahawks Stadium, or Gillette, or any of these new places? I really do think everyone's gonna change their tune not long after we're back.
The old soldier field--a dump The new soldier field--will have better sightlines,bathrooms and concessions.
And in Chicago. Natural Grass Parking without shuttles Public Transportation Proper tailgating etc. etc. etc. A shorter drive from home for those living in the City, the North Suburbs and the South Suburbs "Cooler by the Lake"
good point...I used to love S.F. if only because 90 degree days felt 10 degrees cooler thanks to the lake.
Well, I haven't been to the new Seahawk's stadium, but personally, I don't care for Gillette. Yes, Foxboro was ugly as all getout, had poor sightlines, and was built for pennies on the dollar that paid for Gillette, but I have good memories.
Actually I have gone on record saying that the outside is one of the ugliest structures I have seen considering the lake front/museum campus context. But, I have also said that I think the inside will be a huge improvement. It will feel more intimate and have much better sight lines and a steeper lower level getting us all closer to the field. The inside will be a big improvement for us Fire fans particularly since we won't need the upper deck which could be a bit Comiskey-like. In the big (not Fire related picture), the stadium already fails on a number of levels for the City. First, there are 6,000 less seats than the old place. That makes no sense when the Bears have traditionally had a waiting list for season tickets and have no problem selling out at 66,000. Second, with the technology there to have a retractable roof, Chicago could have been in line for Super Bowls and Final Fours. Finally, the costs are way out of line. It will end up costing about 150-200 million more than the new Reliant stadium in Houston that has 15,000 more seats and a retractable roof. The experience should be better for us, but there are the same negatives in place as when we left. Scheduling problems, field condition, $20 parking Garcia etc.
The Bears don't care if there are 6,000 less regular seats because they would have to have shared that revenue with the visting team. Nowadays it's all about how many club seats and skyboxes you have, because you don't have to share that money. A roof would be nice but another 100-200 million to get one superbowl every 25 years isn't worth it. Of course probably half of the cost of the SF project is going to buy off all the people who would have tried to stop it. The museums etc are getting underground parking and as much as the friends of parks complain about the project they will get a park where the east lot was located.