CHICAGO — The Chicago Bears have generated more headlines this week than perhaps any week during an NFL offseason in the franchise’s long history.
Essentially, the franchise’s future is under the microscope.
As far as the team on the field, Thursday night’s first round of the NFL Draft is monumental for the Bears, who possess two top-10 overall picks, including the No. 1 selection.
With that pick, the Bears are expected to take quarterback Caleb Williams out of USC, who — assuming the Bears pick him — will instantly become the face of the franchise.
Off the field, meanwhile, the franchise made big news Wednesday afternoon when it announced its plans to build a state-of-the-art, fixed-roof stadium on Chicago’s lakefront during a press conference at Soldier Field.
While selecting Williams with the No. 1 overall pick in the draft Thursday night seems pretty cut-and-dried, the new stadium plans are anything but.
So for Bears fans excited about the possibility of a new stadium on the lake, there’s one thing to remember at this point: There are many things that must happen first to make that a reality.
As the Bears prepare to determine the direction of their team on the field Thursday night, here are some of the main headlines, topics of conversation and questions to be asked following Wednesday’s new stadium announcement:
Where will it be?
Under the proposed plan, the new stadium would be built on Museum Campus, just south of where Soldier Field now sits.
Not surprisingly, the Bears’ plans are very ambitious.
The franchise says the project is the fulfillment of Daniel Burnham’s 1909 plan for Chicago, calling the proposed state-of-the-art, fixed-roof stadium “part of a singular year-round hub centered on park-based culture and recreation.”
The Bears propose year-round use for recreational and community events and an increase in open and green space, which would include 14 acres of public-use athletic fields and recreational park spaces.
Additionally, the plan calls for a three-acre promenade and plaza area that could host year-round food and beverage outlets, retail shops, an attraction that focuses on sports and Soldier Field history and a publicly-owned hotel that could also be included.
The Bears say Soldier Field’s historic colonnades will stay standing and would “remain accessible to fans and continue to honor the men and women who served in our nation’s military.”
When will they build it?
In reality, it’s probably way too soon for definitive dates.
However, the Bears say they’re aiming to break ground on the new stadium in the summer of 2025, with a grand opening planned for the summer of 2028.
How big will it be?
The new stadium would have room for 77,000 spectators.
The Bears make no bones about what the goal is: For Chicago to host major events like the Super Bowl and the NCAA Final Four, centered right in the city along the lakefront.
In fact, the term “world-class” was used an awful lot during Wednesday’s press conference. As of Thursday afternoon, the Bears had this message pinned atop their X page: “A world-class destination for a world-class city.”
And the renderings of the proposed new stadium the team released Wednesday were certainly impressive.
So, from the team’s perspective, everything sounds great: A beautiful new stadium, right on the lake, with a roof, public-use fields and recreational spaces, additional green space, access to the lakefront, a plaza, shopping, year-round attractions, a hotel, and presumably whatever else a football fan or tourist could want.
Surely, Chicago would then be host to Super Bowls and Final Fours.
Well, perhaps.
But there are a few catches, to say the least.
Who’s going to pay for it?
Obviously, this is the No. 1 topic of debate for such a project.
The Bears are calling this a “public-private partnership,” which means there’s public money involved. When average citizens hear that, of course, they immediately think taxes.
Three main sources of funding would be:
- $2.025 billion from the Bears.
- $300 million from an NFL fund used to build stadiums.
- $900 million from bonds issued by the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority, which are backed by the city’s 2% hotel tax. This total represents 28% of the proposal.
Bonds are a complicated thing, but WGN political reporter Tahman Bradley provided a nice breakdown by Wednesday evening about what those main financials look like. Check out more in the video below:
Still, more money is needed, as the Sun-Times reports.
Specifically, that report says, the Bears’ plan includes at least $325 million in taxpayer-backed infrastructure improvements for the stadium and Museum Campus.
This is where tax-paying citizens get nervous. To make a plan as large and ambitious as the one the Bears are proposing come to fruition, the amount needed for such “infrastructure improvements” can escalate in a hurry.
Anyone that’s done a major home renovation can tell you this.
Who’s in favor?
Well, obviously the Bears.
And, judging by his remarks throughout Wednesday’s press conference, so is Mayor Brandon Johnson.
“This is going to reinvigorate the entire City of Chicago,” he said. “It will be the crown jewel of the City of Chicago.”
Johnson said he’s worked closely with Bears President and CEO Kevin Warren to ensure that a new stadium project would include both large-scale investment from the Bears and result in facilities that benefit the entire community.
Those conditions appear to have been satisfied for the mayor.
“What I’ve said from the very beginning is that an investment like this requires real skin in the game from ownership, which they’ve done that,” he said. “A commitment to public use, they’ve done that, as well as an overall committee to building a better, stronger, safer Chicago.”
Who’s opposed?
The opposition came out quickly during and after Wednesday’s press conference.
The state’s top leaders, for example, did not seem moved by the Bears’ glamorous proposal.
Gov. Pritzker said he was not invited to Wednesday’s event, but he issued comments at an unrelated press conference reiterating what he’s always felt about the state using public funding to build professional sports venues.
That he’s not in favor.
“I’m highly skeptical of the proposal that’s been made, and I believe strongly that this is not a high priority for legislators, and certainly not for me, when I compare it to all the other things,” Pritzker said.
House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch, also a Democrat, said there isn’t widespread support for the Bears’ plan
“I’m going to say to you publicly what I said to Kevin Warren privately last week: If we were to put this issue on the board for a vote right now, it would fail, and it would fail miserably,” Welch said. “There’s no environment for something like this today.”
Former Gov. Pat Quinn, meanwhile, railed against taxpayer subsidies and wants to take the matter to the voters, something he’s already proposed to do.
While Mayor Johnson and Warren positioned the Bears’ proposal as a “crown jewel” for the city — which, in theory, it could be — it appears they could be in for a fight with state legislators if they want to get it done.
And then there’s the advocacy group Friends of the Parks, which has provided staunch opposition to lakefront projects before.
FOTP issued a scathing response Wednesday to the Bears’ proposal, debunking the team’s claims on what a new stadium would cost and who it would benefit and comparing the plan to other city projects that FOTP says did “not end well for taxpayers.”
“The ‘Chicago Way’ was on full display at the Chicago Bears’ news conference today,” FOTP said in its statement. “Once again, Chicago taxpayers are being told what is good for them.”
FOTP went on to issue a list of detailed questions that it feels must be asked before any stadium project could proceed, including whether the Bears have even considered other locations in the city.
“This is a time for some thoughtful, deliberate and civic engagement,” FOTP said. “A civil, community-driven conversation should be at the forefront of any action the City of Chicago takes regarding the lakefront.”
What about Arlington Heights?
Adding another layer of intrigue is the matter of the Arlington Park property in the northwest suburb of Arlington Heights that the Bears still own.
The Bears purchased the site, formerly home to Arlington International Racecourse, in February 2023 for $197.2 million. Demolition on the racecourse began soon after.
At the time, it seemed likely the Bears would be making their future home in the northwest suburbs.
However, the Bears and local school districts in and around Arlington Heights reached an impasse on the valuation of the property, leaving the Bears with a higher property tax burden there than they feel they should have.
So the Bears seem to have moved on from Arlington Park, saying for a while now that their focus is on the City of Chicago.
Wednesday’s unveiling certainly gave the lakefront plans more confirmation.
But that doesn’t mean a Bears’ move to Arlington Heights is necessarily dead.
The Bears still own the Arlington Park property, and Arlington Heights Mayor Tom Hayes has said his village remains a great location for a new Bears stadium “if they get a ‘no’ on the lakefront.”
It would seem Arlington Heights remains well-positioned as a back-up plan, at least for now.
What do the fans want?
Well, this is probably pretty simple to answer:
Fans generally want a team that can compete for a Super Bowl title on the field, all while playing in a comfortable, state-of-the art stadium that attracts tourist dollars, and they don’t want to reach too deep into their pockets for it.
Of course, that’s a big wish list.
Fans weighed in with WGN after Wednesday’s announcement. Not surprisingly, many who stopped to talk said they would be supportive of the Bears staying in the city along the lakefront, but most felt taxpayers should not be on the hook for such a large chunk of the project.
See more in the video below:
And for anyone who thinks fans will accept anything as long as the hometown team wins, well, it’s important to point out that’s not necessarily the case.
Take the Kansas City Chiefs, winners of three of the last five Super Bowls.
In a sales tax measure sent to the polls in Kansas City that would’ve helped fund a new downtown baseball stadium for the Royals, along with major renovations for the Chiefs’ Arrowhead Stadium, voters handily struck it down, with 58% of those who hit the polls voting against the measure.
What’s next?
This isn’t a satisfying answer, but it all remains to be seen. A lot is still up in the air.
The only thing for certain is that before any ground is broken on a new Bears stadium, there are likely to be more twists and turns and changes to best-laid plans.
For Thursday night, then, Bears fans can just relax and think about the next crop of players they’ll root for on the field.
They may not get a new stadium just yet, but they can still get a new quaterback.
And if history is any indication, that’s been much harder for the Bears to find.
