46 minutes ago46 min 1 minute ago, BrittBurnsFan said:I don't have a subscription...does Chicago mean the city? Or is he lumping AH with Chicago?It means the city, this is the first two lines of the articleThe state of Illinois will leave it up to the Chicago Bears to decide whether to build a stadium in the city or suburbs, but the team will have both options under a proposal being discussed ahead of the upcoming veto session of the General Assembly.Although the Bears previously said their focus is on Arlington Heights or Hammond, Ind., Gov. JB Pritzker today said the city will be an option. That’s again prompting talks by developers and the city about possible scenarios to keep the team within city limits.
43 minutes ago43 min 2 minutes ago, Sleepy Harold said:It means the city, this is the first two lines of the articleWow...interesting! But also exhausting...get it done one way or the other! (personally much prefer it be in IL)
30 minutes ago30 min 12 minutes ago, BrittBurnsFan said:I don't have a subscription...does Chicago mean the city? Or is he lumping AH with Chicago?He means new legislation being crafted would totally leave it up to the Bears where they want to build. My guess is that the Bears want AH as they own 326 acres there and that's where they'll go, but it won't be the IL General Assembly voting specifically for the AH site."The state of Illinois will leave it up to the Chicago Bears to decide whether to build a stadium in the city or suburbs, but the team will have both options under a proposal being discussed ahead of the upcoming veto session of the General Assembly."
28 minutes ago28 min 2 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:He means new legislation being crafted would totally leave it up to the Bears where they want to build. My guess is that the Bears want AH as they own 326 acres there and that's where they'll go, but it won't be the IL General Assembly voting specifically for the AH site."The state of Illinois will leave it up to the Chicago Bears to decide whether to build a stadium in the city or suburbs, but the team will have both options under a proposal being discussed ahead of the upcoming veto session of the General Assembly."If this vision/version of legislation/discussion seals the deal...I wonder how much or what would be different from what was being discussed the past couple of years??
23 minutes ago23 min “There’s a cost of doing nothing, and unfortunately, (in) Chicago we’ve done nothing too often recently,” Ishbia said on stage this morning during a Crain’s event at Allium Events in the Fulton Market District. Referencing the failed effort a decade ago to create the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art on the lakefront and a stymied Chicago Bears push in 2024 for a new downtown stadium, Ishbia warned against vitriolic resistance to “big bets” on the city and encouraged people to consider the value of reinvesting in local rail infrastructure.“If I lived (near Rate Field), I’d want conversations and want to talk about it, and I think there will be more and more conversation coming,” Ishbia said of the planned Amtrak maintenance facility on an existing rail yard between 33rd and 35th streets. “I think the conversation has gotten to where it’s going and exactly what it is. And the conversation probably should be... about the evolution of maintenance facilities in a downtown Chicago environment.”...During today’s discussion, moderated by Crain Communications President and CEO KC Crain, Ishbia said residents near Rate Field “have a right to have all of their questions answered, and Amtrak should listen” and tried to cast the project and the Sox’s future at their current home as separate and distinct issues.
19 minutes ago19 min some other interesting quotes from the pieceOn the prospect of the Sox leaving Rate Field and opportunities to redevelop it“I would say it’s not a foregone conclusion — the White Sox leaving. That’s a Jerry decision. Period. End of conversation. One day I’ll have a turn, but it’s not today,” Ishbia said of the team’s future at the stadium...“If the White Sox decided to leave — that’s a big if, not for sure — how many would love to have roughly 80 acres available for a public conversation about what to make it? Whether it’s residential homes, whether it’s a new sports facility, whether it’s a potential pro sports franchise or a football team, soccer team, or something else. I think the important part of the conversation is what’s next?”Asked if he has been approached by others about redeveloping Rate Field and its surroundings, Ishbia said “a lot of residential developers” have reached out.On the prospect of public financing being used to support a new stadium development“I think it’s incumbent upon somebody who’s gonna be an anchor tenant to build their own home, or build their own facility, whatever they want to build. But I also think it’s appropriate (if you’re building) a major development, you also need roads, bridges, sewers, and other things, and I think it’s appropriate for a community asset to be a community conversation around other things. And so that’s how I think about it. It’s been done before, and we’ve done elsewhere, bridges, roads.... cities have to grow, (and) how things were done in the ’70s, ’80s, and ’90s are different from today.,” he said.
19 minutes ago19 min 3 minutes ago, Sleepy Harold said:If you know anything about transportation and rails, Chicago is a MASSIVE bottleneck in national train traffic because the infrastructure hasn't been updated in like a century in some cases. This is moreso on the freight side than the people side, but those both affect each other for sure. I have no idea if THIS particular facility will make much of a difference or not, but this IS a problem.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.