Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is exploring whether to add thousands of seats to Soldier Field.

Discussion in 'Chicago Bears' started by JustAnotherBearsFan99, Mar 5, 2014.

  1. riczaj01

    riczaj01 DaBears Ditka
    DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2006
    Messages:
    23,271
    Likes Received:
    3,417
    Ratings:
    +4,151 / 10 / -8
    ßearz ßuckz:
    2,510ß
    Please Register or Log in to Remove this Advertisement!
    don't hate it, embrace it, it's what should have happened in the first place.
     
    #21
  2. The Benjamin

    The Benjamin George Halas
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    48,017
    Likes Received:
    2,254
    Ratings:
    +2,677 / 7 / -9
    ßearz ßuckz:
    3,566ß
    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!
     
    #22
    • Like Like x 1
  3. 4dabers

    4dabers Veteran
    DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2013
    Messages:
    830
    Likes Received:
    712
    Ratings:
    +920 / 1 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    233ß
    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.
     
    #23
  4. a_miljan

    a_miljan Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2013
    Messages:
    898
    Likes Received:
    334
    Ratings:
    +420 / 0 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    352ß
    4D is it just me or u dont like Captain Rahm? or is it politicians in general :)
     
    #24
  5. 4dabers

    4dabers Veteran
    DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2013
    Messages:
    830
    Likes Received:
    712
    Ratings:
    +920 / 1 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    233ß
    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.
     
    #25
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Ojibway Bob

    Ojibway Bob Veteran
    SuperFan

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2013
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    96
    Ratings:
    +127 / 0 / -1
    ßearz ßuckz:
    155ß
    I gotta get my ass down to Chicago and see at least 1 game in Soldier's field...
     
    #26
  7. little bear

    little bear Assistant Head Coach

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2008
    Messages:
    13,902
    Likes Received:
    1,408
    Ratings:
    +1,727 / 2 / -6
    ßearz ßuckz:
    2,709ß
    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.
     
    #27
  8. 4dabers

    4dabers Veteran
    DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2013
    Messages:
    830
    Likes Received:
    712
    Ratings:
    +920 / 1 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    233ß
    "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.
     
    #28
    • Like Like x 1
  9. The Benjamin

    The Benjamin George Halas
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    48,017
    Likes Received:
    2,254
    Ratings:
    +2,677 / 7 / -9
    ßearz ßuckz:
    3,566ß
    I can just imagine Super Bowl Sunday in Chicago with some of this weather we had this winter..... yeah, that would be fun.
     
    #29
  10. JustAnotherBearsFan99

    JustAnotherBearsFan99 Assistant Head Coach
    SuperFan DBS Writer

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    Messages:
    11,558
    Likes Received:
    3,446
    Ratings:
    +4,104 / 4 / -1
    ßearz ßuckz:
    3,509ß
    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.

    [​IMG]
     
    #30
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2014
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page

Copyright © DaBears.com. This site is a news, entertainment and information site covering the Chicago Bears and their fans.
DaBears.com is an independent fan site and not associated with the Chicago Bears, National Football League, or any other media site.
All content is provided by, and for, Bear fans. We invite your participation and suggestions.