Thread: Brian Urlacher rips Soldier Field turf

Originally Posted by thekmann

Well if the Bears have to worry about lawsuits from other events played there then they need to either outright buy the stadium from the city...highly unlikely or they need to build their own stadium and if that means they have to go outside the city limits to do so then so be it. I doubt very seriously they would lose any money from fans if they had to travel a little further to get to the stadium. Me personally I think the NFL should step in and force the issue one way or the other because Chicago's political machine as corrupt as it is, is going to need a higher authority than the McCaskeys to make it do something.

just giving some "thoughts" on why the bears dragging feet..I agree would like a synthetic blend.. but just pointing out and you agree, with the city of chicago NOTHING is easy, nor is anything done quickly or without corruption for the most part..and go bck and forth on the Stadium issue.. I would HATE for the team to move and lose all that history and beng downtown and by the water..and while obviously building in the suburbs would make the bears more money and have a shiney corp stadium with 300+ skyboxes racking in the dough and being "cookie cutter" and anonymous with the 15 stadiums like it.. Maybe its just the traditionalist in me, just don't liek that idea- but understand alot wouldn't mind

Originally Posted by Dagan81

Soldier Field lost its individuality when they took out the beautiful view of the Roman columns and replaced that view with press and luxury boxes.

Columns still there

Originally Posted by Dagan81

I was talking about the view from inside the stadium. I don't know why they could have put the press/luxury boxes on the opposite side.

would not have made a difference, the top of new stadium with the seat side also above the column level

Originally Posted by soulman

Uh huh, either way the view is blocked. Those columns may add a lot character and I'm glad to see they preserved what they did but they never did a damn thing to improve the inside of Soldier Field and that old place was not a great place to watch a game.

its a real tough issue,IMO.. trying to "preserve history' Vs creating a great fan enviornment for the team.

You and I are old enough to remember soldier in the old configuration, where Sightlines BAD, 60% of seats in endzone and because "flat" went so far back hard to see anything if near top and felt in another state.. and not even going to go into the 'old pipes and if went to bathroom guarnteed to miss at least a quarter maybe a 1/2 of football"...

So we can debate until cows come home the new glass exterior.. but INSIDE the view, seats, bathrooms etc etc 1,000% better than the old stadium and much closer to action and not a bad seat in house,, that is the "good" of the new,, think the problem comes in "how to preserve" the Old , while looking modern and its not an easy balancing act, and specifically in Soldier field's case, where not only have team/fan demands, but then also have to appease, "public interest groups" like the War vetern's, the "landmark society" and of course the biggie"the corrupt daley's and the city alderman scheme's".. amkes it a much harder balancing act than people think- and sometimes these things aren't taken into account when saying "bears should just move".. or " stadium should be like dallas".. some of that stuff is just impossible

Think seeing this with Wrigly field now.. and the more and more pressure to fix the dump, but try and preserve the tradition also, while greatly upgrading the facility