It’s not ‘someone’ fighting the Bears, it’s basically just about everyone unless the Bears are going to do it completely with their own money, which they won’t. Friends of the Park is against almost all development on the lakefront, but there are plenty of people that wouldn’t mind to see upgrades to the site and stadium that don’t require a truckload of taxpayer cash being handed to the McCaskeys. It would be similar to Bridgeview but the benefit of the Arlington Heights property is commuter rail from downtown and multiple neighborhoods/municipalities make it a much less isolated location. There’s no rapid transit access to either site, and the location would be a much bigger issue for the Fire than the Bears (obviously - the Bears could play on the moon and still outdraw the Fire) but it would be slightly better than Bridgeview and could potentially work if some of the 8 million other things wrong with the Fire get fixed.
I don't understand why they would get rid of Soldier Field if they did build another stadium, when I seen a proposal to upgrade with the Fire as the tenant a while back. This article has the three options and the last one was for soccer. https://chicago.urbanize.city/post/lightfoot-reveals-plan-soldier-field-dome
This article is OVER two years old. It involves discussions with a previous mayor. Stop bringing up old crap that won't happen. It adds nothing to the dialogue.
I am sorry to be so blunt, but none of this is news and none of this really fits the topic of this thread at this point. No. The Fire moving to Arlington Heights would be stupid. It was one on the options before Bridgeview was chosen. 1)The Bears paid almost $200 million for the land to build their new stadium complex, but the public appetite is not there for funding, despite that the north/northwest suburbs are the very heart of Bears country. There would be no desire for a soccer stadium there. 2) The mayor of Arlington Heights is desperate to feed his ego. 3) (most importantly) Joe Manseuto is committed to the Fire playing IN Chicago. He has stated that dozens of time during his tenure as owner and was THE driving force for the Bridgeview lease buy out. This speculation is useless until the Bears (and the City) decide what they are going to do. Only then will the Fire's future plans be discussed. We have several threads over many years in the Chicago Fire Boards discussing the options. When there is something to report, it will be reported. In the interim, posting months and two year old articles serve no purpose. Edit: and what @harrylee773 said.
Anything that's being proposed without being confirmed would mean it's still in play. I would think the Bears are the key but once they come to terms that could open new opportunities.
A park. Chicago is/was supposed to keep the entire lakefront "forever free" of development. The @ssclown group "Friends of The Park" are a group of wealthy political donors who view the lakefront as their own personal backyard. So their form of NIMBYism is down to them having the cash to buy pretty much any Chicago politician, coupled with them viewing the entirety of the lakefront as "THEIRS." TL/DR: Neither the bears, nor the fire will ever be able to build on the lakefront.
Lawns, paths, statues, fountains. I believe they're only talking about the old facade that's at one end of the stadium.
Correct. However is the play on words the Wank Dorfs? or Wanked Orffs??? So continue bringing up old articles. Check! Got it!
Bottom line is the dome will be an NFL stadium. The Fire need an MLS stadium. Even if it’s some type of Seattle/Atlanta/Charlotte sharing arrangement, it will still be an NFL stadium and the soccer team is secondary. Until the Fire find their own solution, I predict they will continue to fail. As a Crew fan, I’m good with that. As an MLS fan, I’d love to see them get their shit together.
If anyone complains about MLS stadium situations here's a couple to throw at them. Queens Park were given £5 million by the Scottish FA to get out of Hampden Park after 103 years. They spent £3 million on a stadium called Lesser Hampden and the rest to turn pro, which included appointing Owen Coyle as manager. By the time Lesser Hampden was finished they were in the Championship, which has minimum capacity requirements that far exceed Lesser Hampden's 1,774, so they are renting Hampden Park from the Scottish FA. Welsh club The New Saints have been given a rare exception by UEFA to play their home UEFA Conference League games in another country, England, at Shrewsbury Town, as opposed to their home stadium, the former home of Oswestry Town, which is also in England.
To have control of the revenue streams first and foremost. NE, SEA, ATL don't have that issue since the owner owns both the pointy ball & soccer teams. IIRC, NFL fields are crowned, while a soccer pitch is supposed to be flat. It makes a difference in how the field plays. Though perhaps domeszare different with no drainage.
As I recall, Sigi Schmid hated Lumen Field's artificial turf. I think he said it was a little better after they replaced it but it was still pretty bad.
I'm not sure who likes it, tbh. The union for the NFL players are opposed to turf and Pete Carroll was also opposed to it while he was the Seahawks head coach.. I really don't get why they don't install permanent grass next year. If the club world cup actually happens (which is seriously in doubt), Seattle is supposed to host 6 games. I would think they could tear up the turf and install grass once the Seahawks play their last game this season. Since FIFA doesn't require a 1 month window before the Club World Cup like they do for the MWC, the Sounders could be playing on grass in May or July and they'd have a full year to work out the kinks.
Kinda? It set a maximum of 5 years between turf replacements and the Sounders or Seahawks could request a replacement after 3 years, but both had to agree or the requestor had to pay the full cost of replacement. Before that there was no set period for the turf to be replaced, but the Seahawks had been replacing it every 5ish years.
In other stadium news, if the Whitecaps get the 8th seed, they'll have to play the match in Portland since BC Place is booked up with the World Supercross Championship that day. Seems that MLS vetoed playing in the two somewhat local CPL stadiums, Langford (Pacific FC's stadium) or Langley (Vancouver FC's stadium). https://www.whitecapsfc.com/news/update-mls-cup-playoffs-wild-card-match
That will be a great bookend to the season which began on Vancouver Island due to the BC Home and Garden Show at BC Place.