Is “The 78” Dead? Or even more alive? Fire announce plans for SSS

[nitetrain8601]

4 minutes ago, Autumn Dreamin said:

Honestly it makes sense. Double the house, half the taxes

[Lip Man 1]

44 minutes ago, nitetrain8601 said:

Honestly it makes sense. Double the house, half the taxes

While it makes some sense... given the current environment, how things are going in the country everywhere, including Illinois, I don't see many politicians sticking their necks out to help the McCaskey family who are worth let's just say a s$%^ load of money. 

This letter kind of reminds me of desperation setting in by the Bears, I think they know they are between a rock and a hard place regarding the politicians. I don't know if the political will is there and how much political capital the Bears have or leverage. 

And remember the debt still owed to the renovation in 2002. 

I mean what are they going to do? Move to St. Louis? 😉

Edited Wednesday at 11:57 PM by Lip Man 1

[WBWSF]

24 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

While it makes some sense... given the current environment, how things are going in the country everywhere, including Illinois, I don't see many politicians sticking their necks out to help the McCaskey family who are worth let's just say a s$%^ load of money. 

This letter kind of reminds me of desperation setting in by the Bears, I think they know they are between a rock and a hard place regarding the politicians. I don't know if the political will is there and how much political capital the Bears have or leverage. 

And remember the debt still owed to the renovation in 2002. 

I mean what are they going to do? Move to St. Louis? 😉

Indiana will welcome the Bears with open arms.

[caulfield12]

17 minutes ago, WBWSF said:

Indiana will welcome the Bears with open arms.

Even with the Colts ND Purdue?

[Lip Man 1]

26 minutes ago, WBWSF said:

Indiana will welcome the Bears with open arms.

Maybe and maybe their politicians will feel the same way as the ones in Illinois after their voters let them know how they feel and I don't see where that would be a catastrophe if they moved across the state line.

The Giants and Jets don't play in New York state.

 

Edited Thursday at 12:30 AM by Lip Man 1

[Lip Man 1]

Pritzker responds:

“The Governor’s a Bears fan who has always wanted them to stay in Chicago. He has also said that ultimately they are a private business that makes their own decisions, but the Governor has also been clear that the bottom line for any private business development should not come at the full expense of taxpayers.”

Pritzker and other Democratic legislative leaders who pull the levers in Springfield have suggested the team needs to find a mechanism to pay off the $500 million-plus that taxpayers still have left to foot from Soldier Field’s 2003 renovation.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/bears/2025/12/17/bears-stadium-arlington-heights-kevin-warren-shift

Edited Thursday at 12:38 AM by Lip Man 1

[77 Hitmen]

2 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said:

I mean what are they going to do? Move to St. Louis? 😉

Rumor has it there is a state whose borders come right up to the Chicago city limits and is within the Chicago TV market.   Maybe someone could fact-check that. 

[77 Hitmen]

2 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Maybe and maybe their politicians will feel the same way as the ones in Illinois after their voters let them know how they feel and I don't see where that would be a catastrophe if they moved across the state line.

The Giants and Jets don't play in New York state.

 

I think landing the Bears would be a major coup for the State of Indiana and Northwest Indiana.  I expect their politicians would move heaven and earth to get a deal done and NO Indiana elected officials are going to lose an election for bringing the Bears to their area.  In fact, I expect the opposite would be true - Indiana politicians from both sides of the aisle will have a field day telling their constituents how they got the iconic Chicago Bears to relocate across state lines.  

IMHO opinion, it would be a gigantic black eye to Chicago and the State of Illinois to lose the Bears.  It would just reaffirm to everyone that people and businesses are fleeing the city and state because it's not friendly to businesses.   Other cities and states get major projects done while Illinois/Cook County is where projects like this go to die so that politicians can say they stuck it to business owners because they're rich.

It would be different if the Bears were asking for public funding for the stadium itself.  But for a state to blunder its way out of an NFL franchise and $2B in private investment for the stadium itself because they won't budge on infrastructure spending and property tax relief sends a bad signal to the business community.    

Oh, and Illinois and Cook County can say goodbye to a lot of Taylor Swift-type mega concerts, NCAA tournaments, etc. if NW Indiana builds a climate-controlled 65k seat fixed-roof stadium.  It won't only be about the 9 or 10 Bears games per season they're losing.

Edited Thursday at 02:47 AM by 77 Hitmen

[WBWSF]

When the  United Center was built with private money the government  spent money on the infrastructure around it.

[mac9001]

They didn't spend $200M on the land in Arlington Heights without essentially committing to the development with or without state funding. Everything that's occurred after that was about leverage. They're not moving to NW Indiana even if they were to get billions in funding. It was always going to be AH or if they managed to get enough leverage against Chicago a new lake front stadium. They'll just partner with developers on a piece meal basis and work with AH on a tiff for infrastructure. The state will eventually kick im some money because at the end of the day roads and sewers are going to get built anyway and the unions will make sure the state kicks the money in so they control the contracts. 

[Buehrle>Wood]

32 minutes ago, WBWSF said:

When the  United Center was built with private money the government  spent money on the infrastructure around it.

Isn't that happening with the 78?

[Lip Man 1]

1 hour ago, mac9001 said:

They didn't spend $200M on the land in Arlington Heights without essentially committing to the development with or without state funding. Everything that's occurred after that was about leverage. They're not moving to NW Indiana even if they were to get billions in funding. It was always going to be AH or if they managed to get enough leverage against Chicago a new lake front stadium. They'll just partner with developers on a piece meal basis and work with AH on a tiff for infrastructure. The state will eventually kick im some money because at the end of the day roads and sewers are going to get built anyway and the unions will make sure the state kicks the money in so they control the contracts. 

That's a great point, the Bears are just going to kiss-off a 200 million dollar investment?

Anything is possible and I don't know if they'd be able to sell that land to someone and get their money back.

Like I posted originally this smacks of desperation to me a "threat" to move unless they get what they want.

It worked for JR back in the day, we'll see if the same ploy works again.

The Gary Steel Bears...has a nice ring to it. 😉

[The Beast]

1 hour ago, mac9001 said:

They didn't spend $200M on the land in Arlington Heights without essentially committing to the development with or without state funding. Everything that's occurred after that was about leverage. They're not moving to NW Indiana even if they were to get billions in funding. It was always going to be AH or if they managed to get enough leverage against Chicago a new lake front stadium. They'll just partner with developers on a piece meal basis and work with AH on a tiff for infrastructure. The state will eventually kick im some money because at the end of the day roads and sewers are going to get built anyway and the unions will make sure the state kicks the money in so they control the contracts. 

 

1 hour ago, 77 Hitmen said:

I think landing the Bears would be a major coup for the State of Indiana and Northwest Indiana.  I expect their politicians would move heaven and earth to get a deal done and NO Indiana elected officials are going to lose an election for bringing the Bears to their area.  In fact, I expect the opposite would be true - Indiana politicians from both sides of the aisle will have a field day telling their constituents how they got the iconic Chicago Bears to relocate across state lines.  

IMHO opinion, it would be a gigantic black eye to Chicago and the State of Illinois to lose the Bears.  It would just reaffirm to everyone that people and businesses are fleeing the city and state because it's not friendly to businesses.   Other cities and states get major projects done while Illinois/Cook County is where projects like this go to die so that politicians can say they stuck it to business owners because they're rich.

It would be different if the Bears were asking for public funding for the stadium itself.  But for a state to blunder its way out of an NFL franchise and $2B in private investment for the stadium itself because they won't budge on infrastructure spending and property tax relief sends a bad signal to the business community.    

Oh, and Illinois and Cook County can say goodbye to a lot of Taylor Swift-type mega concerts, NCAA tournaments, etc. if NW Indiana builds a climate-controlled 65k seat fixed-roof stadium.  It won't only be about the 9 or 10 Bears games per season they're losing.

What is Illinois going to have to agree to for property tax relief and for infrastructure, that is what I want to know?

[Lip Man 1]

3 minutes ago, The Beast said:

 

What is Illinois going to have to agree to for property tax relief and for infrastructure, that is what I want to know?

I'm guessing a lot of people in power and voters are asking the same thing. 

[chitownsportsfan]

Seems like with the Bears situation easy PR move to try and stay and develop in the city.

[77 Hitmen]

56 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

That's a great point, the Bears are just going to kiss-off a 200 million dollar investment?

Anything is possible and I don't know if they'd be able to sell that land to someone and get their money back.

Like I posted originally this smacks of desperation to me a "threat" to move unless they get what they want.

It worked for JR back in the day, we'll see if the same ploy works again.

The Gary Steel Bears...has a nice ring to it. 😉

You don't think they'd find a buyer for 300 acres of prime, undeveloped real estate close to 2 major expressways and a Metra stop?

Did they overpay for the land?  Serious question, I'm not being facetious.  What does that kind of parcel right in the heart of a thriving area go for?

[mac9001]

45 minutes ago, The Beast said:

 

What is Illinois going to have to agree to for property tax relief and for infrastructure, that is what I want to know?

They don't have to agree to anything. The Bears will whine, make empty threats, then they'll build their stadium and pay their tax bill. They're not leaving Chicago for Hammand or Gary. If they leave it's just a matter of time some billionaire with enough ambition and ego builds a competing suburban stadium development (see Ishiba) and completely guts the a NWI stadium monopoly on holding premium events in Chicago. It also opens up the Bears to potentially encouraging Chicago (or even a different suburban development) from making a play for a different NFL franchise. If you build on the Chicago River developers will line up, if you build in AH developers will line up.

Building in NWI is like building in Waukegan, you can, but you shouldn't and you won't. If your gonna make a threat like this you threaten to move a across the country, there's no way Kevin Warren could with a straight face on camera make a legitimate claim they're considering Gary Indiana. 

[77 Hitmen]

2 hours ago, WBWSF said:

When the  United Center was built with private money the government  spent money on the infrastructure around it.

 

1 hour ago, Buehrle>Wood said:

Isn't that happening with the 78?

If the Ishbias commit to privately financing a baseball stadium there, I sure hope so.  

[tray]

7 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said:

 

If the Ishbias commit to privately financing a baseball stadium there, I sure hope so.  

Not sure why you continue to resurrect a dead issue with hundreds of posts. Ishbia, is never going to lease land from an Iranian criminal instead of from IL taxpayers. Not going to happen and there are many reasons why. i.e, limited ingress/egress, complicated development issues*, and, contrary to what you have argued here, the "78" is not within walking distance to any entertainment venue.  Even if it was, that area would not be safe for fans to be walking around especially given that  the majority of White Sox home games are at night.  What you hope for would further risk the future of the White Sox franchise in Chicago, something that is already a concern. But anyway, proceed.

*from AI: 

Key Findings and Project Details

• Site History and Soil Composition: The 62-acre site, located along the Chicago River, is former railyard land, and the river itself previously ran through a portion of the proposed location. Geotechnical surveys have identified challenging subsurface conditions:
  • River Muck: Borings indicated a layer of very soft, organic river muck with very low soil strength near the river's elevation.
  • Fill Material: The surface generally consists of 1 to 2.5 feet of fill, including gravel, sand, silt, bricks, and clay.
  • Contamination: A strong petroleum odor was noted at some boring locations, and the general history of industrial use means the soil may require environmental remediation.
• Construction Approach: Due to these conditions, the project team, a joint venture including Pepper Construction, GMA Construction Group, and ALL Construction, is emphasizing specific foundation and soil remediation strategies to ensure structural integrity. Soil stabilization is a primary challenge for the riverfront construction.

Note: Any further development beyond the Fire stadium, including commercial or residential, would require the same environmental and structural evaluation.

 

 

 

 

Edited Thursday at 12:34 PM by tray

[Sleepy Harold]

36 minutes ago, tray said:

Not sure why you continue to resurrect a dead issue with hundreds of posts. Ishbia, is never going to lease land from an Iranian criminal instead of from IL taxpayers. Not going to happen and there are many reasons why. i.e, limited ingress/egress, complicated development issues*, and, contrary to what you have argued here, the "78" is not within walking distance to any entertainment venue.  Even if it was, that area would not be safe for fans to be walking around especially given that  the majority of White Sox home games are at night.  What you hope for would further risk the future of the White Sox franchise in Chicago, something that is already a concern. But anyway, proceed.

*from AI: 

Key Findings and Project Details

• Site History and Soil Composition: The 62-acre site, located along the Chicago River, is former railyard land, and the river itself previously ran through a portion of the proposed location. Geotechnical surveys have identified challenging subsurface conditions:
  • River Muck: Borings indicated a layer of very soft, organic river muck with very low soil strength near the river's elevation.
  • Fill Material: The surface generally consists of 1 to 2.5 feet of fill, including gravel, sand, silt, bricks, and clay.
  • Contamination: A strong petroleum odor was noted at some boring locations, and the general history of industrial use means the soil may require environmental remediation.
• Construction Approach: Due to these conditions, the project team, a joint venture including Pepper Construction, GMA Construction Group, and ALL Construction, is emphasizing specific foundation and soil remediation strategies to ensure structural integrity. Soil stabilization is a primary challenge for the riverfront construction.

Note: Any further development beyond the Fire stadium, including commercial or residential, would require the same environmental and structural evaluation.

 

 

 

 

[Lukakke Appling]

7 hours ago, Sleepy Harold said:

This kid makes me laugh every single time. 

[southsider2k5]

9 hours ago, tray said:

Not sure why you continue to resurrect a dead issue with hundreds of posts. Ishbia, is never going to lease land from an Iranian criminal instead of from IL taxpayers. Not going to happen and there are many reasons why. i.e, limited ingress/egress, complicated development issues*, and, contrary to what you have argued here, the "78" is not within walking distance to any entertainment venue.  Even if it was, that area would not be safe for fans to be walking around especially given that  the majority of White Sox home games are at night.  What you hope for would further risk the future of the White Sox franchise in Chicago, something that is already a concern. But anyway, proceed.

*from AI: 

Key Findings and Project Details

• Site History and Soil Composition: The 62-acre site, located along the Chicago River, is former railyard land, and the river itself previously ran through a portion of the proposed location. Geotechnical surveys have identified challenging subsurface conditions:
  • River Muck: Borings indicated a layer of very soft, organic river muck with very low soil strength near the river's elevation.
  • Fill Material: The surface generally consists of 1 to 2.5 feet of fill, including gravel, sand, silt, bricks, and clay.
  • Contamination: A strong petroleum odor was noted at some boring locations, and the general history of industrial use means the soil may require environmental remediation.
• Construction Approach: Due to these conditions, the project team, a joint venture including Pepper Construction, GMA Construction Group, and ALL Construction, is emphasizing specific foundation and soil remediation strategies to ensure structural integrity. Soil stabilization is a primary challenge for the riverfront construction.

Note: Any further development beyond the Fire stadium, including commercial or residential, would require the same environmental and structural evaluation.

 

 

 

 

I don't know why you keep going to this well, but most of the gigantic buildings of downtown Manhattan, a large portion of downtown San Francisco, as well as most of the buildings past Michigan Avenue in Chicago are built on fill.  There is enough bedrock below which is accessible enough to build foundations for thousand foot tall buildings on, let alone a ballpark.  None of what you posted is a dealbreaker, and is dealt with on sites all over the nation for much more complex buildings.

[tray]

I left this topic alone but wondered why one poster in particular kept posting on this hundreds of times.  Meanwhile you cannot let one post of mine go by without chiming in.  You cite skyscrapers which present entirely different foundation requirements and cost parameters per sq. ft.,  but that has nothing to do with what is required at the 78. Of course almost any building can be built almost anywhere. So what?

Recall that the U of I suddenly cancelled plans to build on the 78 citing among other things, the ballooning costs of construction. The Developer left taxpayers  holding the bag for 30 Million in unpaid contractor bills. There was a deal breaker in that case. 

Frankly, I don't know how much more in additional costs could be a deal breaker for Mansuetso/the Fire or any project on that site. You suggested that added costs will not be a deal breaker. How so?   Is Mansueto all in, regardless of costs?  That would be an unusual approach for any businessman/developer. 

You failed to address the other points  I made, but oh well ... maybe let it go. I don't really want to engage you further. 

Edited Thursday at 10:28 PM by tray

[southsider2k5]

2 minutes ago, tray said:

I left this topic alone but wondered why one poster in particular kept posting on this hundreds of times.  Meanwhile you cannot let one post of mine go by without chiming in.  You cite skyscrapers which present entirely different foundation requirements and cost parameters per sq. ft.,  but that has nothing to do with what is required at the 78. Of course almost any building can be built almost anywhere. So what?

Recall that the U of I suddenly cancelled plans to build on the 78 citing among other things, the ballooning costs of construction. The Developer left taxpayers  holding the bag for 30 Million in unpaid contractor bills. There was a deal breaker in that case. 

Frankly, I don't know how much more in additional costs could be a deal breaker for Mansuetso/the Fire or any project on that site. You suggested that added costs will not be a deal breaker. How so?   Is Mansueto all in, regardless of costs?  That would be an unusual approach for any businessman/developer. 

To be frank, you are taking the financing failure of projects to mean that something can't be built on the site, and that couldn't be more wrong.  Having literally sat on Planning Commissions for about a decade, and being involved in the planning process for major projects, most of them never get built because of being able to raise financing, not because of soil or whatever else you are pushing here.  Pretty sure that is not going to be the problem here with the guy who owns the Fire.  Realistically all of the site remediation stuff is what costs will be pushed off on to the state and city as a redevelopment site to get this property back on the tax rolls at a massive number.  This is what they love to put under the category of "infrastructure" we hear so much about.

And for the record I am pretty sure the freaking One World Trade Center site weighs more per square foot than any other building project that could be put on the 78, and the WTC complex is literally the old Hudson River bank that was filled in over the centuries.  They found a 17th century boat when they put the pilons in for the new WTC.  Pretty sure the engineers can handle this.

[77 Hitmen]

10 hours ago, tray said:

Not sure why you continue to resurrect a dead issue with hundreds of posts.

I seriously shouldn't dignify this nonsense with a response and give more oxygen to your diatribes, but here it goes:

1)  You have no right to tell me what to post.  I'll leave that to the mods and I assume they'll chime in if I say something objectionable.  If talking about a proposed stadium at the 78 angers you so much, you are free to ignore this thread.

2) The post that I made about that triggered you so badly was in response to a comment another poster made about the 78.  Otherwise, the current discussion is about the Bears recent announcement, which is newsworthy.  

3) Nothing anyone on this site says for or against a Sox stadium at the 78 is going to change the outcome of what the next White Sox owner wants to do with a ballpark going forward.  It'll be ownership's decision and they aren't turning to Soxtalk for advice.  The only recent news we have to go on is what he told the Pope at the Vatican.