Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Chicago Bears' started by JustAnotherBearsFan99, Mar 5, 2014.
don't hate it, embrace it, it's what should have happened in the first place.
I hate saying it because it is not popular.
But if they can tear down the "house that Ruth built" if they can alter Wrigley Field and Fenway, why not Soldier Field?
Keep the columns, or build new ones.
Send the Bears to play at a GOOD semi-local stadium to show that they can fill a huge stadium while it is being built.
And for the love of George Halas, get us some actual NFL quality turf!
You are 100% correct. Actually, it was worse than short sighted. Short sighted suggests that they just didn't understand or failed to consider long term effects. However, in this case, the point of seating capacity was raised by many and the Bears were concerned about it, but the city sweetened the deal for the Bears and the Bears ended up getting the Luxury seating they wanted, so they let the deal go. Nope, this was just freaking stupid! Hundreds of Millions of taxpayer dollars (both City and State) went into that damn thing and now the City doesn't think it's adequate. Nice job Chicago. The next thing will be that the City tries to blame the Bears and get them to foot a part of the bill when they tried to tell them to begin with. This one is on Daley and the City, the Bears are just a tenant and the tenant isn't the one wanting this improvement.
4D is it just me or u dont like Captain Rahm? or is it politicians in general :)
Very observant of you Mil. Let's put it this way, I turn 50 this weekend and I've spent my whole life as a resident of the State of Illinois (much of it around Springfield), so I've seen my share of political crap. As a result, I have a healthy degree of skepticism of ALL politicians, but I generally have a strong dislike for those spawning from the Chicago Political machine, regardless of party affiliations. Mayor Daley and Rahm Emanuel are no exceptions.
I remember the first renovation and I recall all the uproar about spending public funds to help the Bears. I also see people all across this country complain when new stadiums are built with public money. I am not one of those complainers. I recognize the economic benefit of such expenses and I believe they are are largely an investment in a vibrant economy of a City. However, I have a problem with politicians that are disingenuous about such an investment. I applaud those that make a decision and come out and say "Yea, we're going to build a new stadium to keep our home team here..." and then do it right. I DO have a problem with politicians that whine and deride that team and claim public funds shouldn't be used for such things and then turn around and do it anyway. Can we just be honest. When you have a huge economic engine that helps drive a substantial part of your local economy, then I am all for keeping that engine tuned. Within reason.
The problem here is, they went ahead and spent those funds knowing damn well that the seating was insufficient. This was all talked about before they approved the final plans. Then they go ahead and build it and just 12 years later they say, it's not good enough. So NOW the City wants to spend the extra money to be able to attract those other benefits, but where does the money come from now? The City of Chicago isn't far off financially from Detroit. The State is even more broke now than it was in 2002. So who pays for this stuff? Beji talks about tearing it down and starting over. I know he's probably not serious, but the demolition alone would cost tens of millions and the full price tag for a new stadium would likely be close to $1 Billion.
This is why our nation is going broke.
OK, rant done. Sorry.
I gotta get my ass down to Chicago and see at least 1 game in Soldier's field...
That's not correct. You don't "need" 70,000 seats to host a Super Bowl. Per example, Lucas Oil has a seating capacity of 62,400, but can be expanded to a capacity of 68,000 for larger events, such as the Super Bowl.
If they can add 3,500 seats and reach a capacity of 65,000 we'll definitely host a Super Bowl in the near future.
Having a big stadium is not as important as having many sports bars, hotel rooms etc. The city of Chicago deserves it.
"Having a big stadium is not as important as having many sports bars, hotel rooms etc. The city of Chicago deserves it."
I think it would be cool too, but why does the City "deserve" it? If they had a dome (which I know is a whole can of worms with a lot of fans), then yea, but Chicago sucks in January and February. Combine that with a small stadium and I really don't know why Chicago "deserves" it.
I can just imagine Super Bowl Sunday in Chicago with some of this weather we had this winter..... yeah, that would be fun.
Sad, but true :)
If the guy on the lower-level seat is pretty strong, the McCaskey's could possibly go up three-high. That would triple our seating capacity. They could charge sky-box prices for the people on the top level of the human pyramid too. Gotta love that.
Why can New Jersey host the game and Chicago can't?
Where are they gonna add them? Next to the United Center or out on Lakeshore Drive? By looking at the place it doesn't look to me like an expansion plan was ever built into the design. Maybe if the Bears had a bigger stadium the could have a fatter checkbook. I have to agree that building the smallest stadium in the NFL made NO sense at all. They can add seats but I don't think the NFL will be all that anxious to keep doing outdoor Super Bowls in places where the weather can easily be below zero on February. The were lucky and dodged a bullet this year but they won't always be that lucky. Besides who wanted to go to NJ for a Super Bowl celebration. They had trouble selling all the tickets.
And that's why they need a to add more seats and then we're ready to go. It's not a huge difference between 68,000 and 65,000, is it?
No, 3K is not really that big of a difference...
but what about when someone with 64K wants to host, and they say... "Come on, Chicago hosted at 65K, whats one thousand" and so on and so on.
I know it doesn't get much smaller than Soldier, but you see where I am going
I'll get serious here for a minute. Soldier Field used to seat over 100,000. In 1927 the Notre Dame vs USC game had an official attendance of 123,000. The 1926 Army Navy game drew 110,000 fans. In 1937 they actually had 115,000 watching the Austin v. Leo High School Prep Bowl football game. Must have been one heck of a high school matchup to draw 115k people.
Over the years SF has drawn a lot of crowds over 100k. They even had over a quarter million people come to a Catholic mass there in the 1950's. Granted, that's seating in the field area itself for something like that. The Jack Dempsey/Gene Tunney heavyweight fight in 1927 had 104,000.
The seating was cut down when the Bears started using the field in 1971 (they had been playing games before that, at Wrigley Field). They cut the capacity all the way down to 57,000. They did bring the seats closer to the field though. I'll try to find an old pic of SF when it held over 100k for games, and post it here.
EDIT: Here's some.
1926 Army/Navy game.
Here it is in 1953 before the Bears cut the capacity down from over 100k to 57k.
Fack..I just have to say WOW!!!! damn when i saw the Bears play the Bills in our Rogers Centre...AKA skydome it was said that attendance was almost 51k (Seats sold not actually full seats). I cannot imagine sitting with that many people....Fack I get itchy thinking about that...WOW
I think the Chicago Park District missed the label that said dry clean only.