Bears shifting focus to lakefront for new domed stadium, sources say

The Chicago Bears have shifted their focus to the parking area south of Soldier Field, their current home, in their quest for a new domed stadium. There, in a statement released Monday, the team says it will invest more than $2 billion in private money in a publicly-owned stadium and park space.

Sources, including legislators, who have been briefed on the project, say plans call for creating nearly 20% more open space than exists now, public plazas compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, more landscaping and plantings and increased public access to the lakefront.

“The Chicago Bears are proud to contribute over $2 billion to build a stadium and improve open spaces for all families, fans and the general public to enjoy in the City of Chicago," Kevin Warren, the team's president and CEO, said in a statement. "The future stadium of the Chicago Bears will bring a transformative opportunity to our region — boosting the economy, creating jobs, facilitating mega events and generating millions in tax revenue. We look forward to sharing more information when our plans are finalized.”

But the scant details released so far raise many more questions than they answer about how much the stadium would cost, how it would be financed and how much public money would be needed.

Sources also say the team is touting a new poll showing support for a publicly-funded stadium that would keep the team in the city.

The plan also presumes that much of Soldier Field — except the historic colonnades and war memorial — would be torn down to create the additional promised green space, others sources have told the Sun-Times. But where the money for that work would come from is another unanswered question.

Still, the shift in focus from Arlington Heights, where the team purchased the 326-acre site of the old Arlington International Racecourse, is significant. The Bears spent $197.2 million on that property, with dreams of building a stadium and developing shops, restaurants, bars and housing on the rest of the site, but that effort has been stymied by a property tax stalemate with suburban school districts.

And as hurdles developed in Arlington Heights, the Bears also were approached by other suburbs, including Naperville and Waukegan.

Then, in December, came word that the team was starting to consider the south parking lot as an alternative to Arlington Heights. And last week, the developer hoping to build a new stadium for the White Sox at Clark and Randolph streets in the South Loop told the Sun-Times the Bears and White Sox were talking about a “financing partnership” to get two stadiums built in the city with public money.

The Sox site is a large tract of vacant land known as The 78, and Curt Bailey, president of developer Related Midwest, told the Sun-Times the plan there would include a hotel, office space, housing and retail space.

But there was no mention Monday of how the Bears might hope to develop the land around a new lakefront football stadium — adding bars, restaurants, shops — as the teams have said it would do at the Arlington Heights site.

And perhaps most crucially, there was no mention of how the Bears would fend off a likely court challenge from Friends of the Parks, which has opposed any new building along the lakefront — and which fought plans by movie mogul George Lucas to build a museum south of Soldier Field.

The ongoing court fight eventually forced Lucas to build that museum in Los Angeles.

Though some poll results were revealed, they lacked some crucial details — namely, the exact questions asked, when the poll was conducted and how those polled were selected.

The survey by Las Vegas-based McGuire Research, purportedly shows 80% of the 500 registered Chicago voters polled support a Museum Campus location for a new stadium — and 77% support that location because they want to keep the Chicago Bears in the city.

Sources also said the poll shows over 6 in 10 Chicagoans support using public money for a publicly owned stadium, and 66% specifically support a a new Museum Campus location over suburban options.

But a year ago, a Chicago Sun-Times/WBEZ/Telemundo Chicago/NBC5 Poll of 625 Chicago voters showed less support.

While about half of those surveyed wanted the team to stay in Chicago, only about 42% supported using taxpayer money to keep them here, compared to 51% opposed and 7% undecided. That poll of randomly-selected registered voters was conducted Jan. 31-Feb. 3, 2023.

The latest news leaves still other questions unanswered:

• Where is that private money coming from, and how much of it is from the National Football League?

• Would the team sell naming rights to the new stadium? That wasn’t viable at Soldier Field, given its war memorial status.

• If bonds are issued to help fund the stadium, which public entity would issue them, and what tax would be used to pay off those bonds?

• What are the infrastructure costs at the lakefront site?

• Would public transit along the lakefront be improved to allow better access to the stadium?

If the White Sox use bonds issued by the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority to help pay for their new stadium, that could affect whether the Bears also can tap into that revenue source — or, as state Rep. Kam Buckner, D-Chicago has suggested, the Bears could approach the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority about issuing bonds for a new football stadium.