Is it time to tear down Soldier Field

number51

Señor Member
Donator
Joined:
Aug 25, 2012
Posts:
16,903
Liked Posts:
11,721
Location:
Funk & Wagnalls' porch
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Notre Dame Fighting Irish
Why is everyone talking about the McCaskey family? SF is owned by the Chicago Park District. The McCaskey family doesn't own the land or the stadium, they rent it, it's like talking about a tenant tearing down an apartment building he is a resident in.

That security deposit would be history.
 

WestCoastBearsFan

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 25, 2017
Posts:
16,867
Liked Posts:
12,063
My favorite teams
  1. Los Angeles Lakers
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Los Angeles Kings
  1. Clemson Tigers
Why is everyone talking about the McCaskey family? SF is owned by the Chicago Park District. The McCaskey family doesn't own the land or the stadium, they rent it, it's like talking about a tenant tearing down an apartment building he is a resident in.

That security deposit would be history.
True they can’t tear it down but they could move out
 

WestCoastBearsFan

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 25, 2017
Posts:
16,867
Liked Posts:
12,063
My favorite teams
  1. Los Angeles Lakers
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Los Angeles Kings
  1. Clemson Tigers
....and I am sure that Rosemont will want in on it this time too rounding out a group of awful options.

The stadium may have its flaws, but that location is unbeatable.
Sure let’s ignore the fact that it’s the ugliest and smallest in the NFL with a history of incompetent management for the location.
 

Penny Traitor

バカでも才能は一つ
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
11,244
Liked Posts:
17,121
Location:
Chicago
Sure let’s ignore the fact that it’s the ugliest and smallest in the NFL with a history of incompetent management for the location.

Sounds like a plan to me.

I mean its not like football stadiums are known for breathtaking architecture or that there will ever be competent management for anything in Chicago...so why not save those poor McCaskeys a few bucks?
 

WestCoastBearsFan

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 25, 2017
Posts:
16,867
Liked Posts:
12,063
My favorite teams
  1. Los Angeles Lakers
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Los Angeles Kings
  1. Clemson Tigers
Sounds like a plan to me.

I mean its not like football stadiums are known for breathtaking architecture or that there will ever be competent management for anything in Chicago...so why not save those poor McCaskeys a few bucks?
If you at least own the stadium it can’t take a literal decade to fix the fucking grass. And it doesn’t have to be an architectural marvel but look at stadiums like the Mercedes Benz stadium in Atlanta, the new stadium in LA, or even lambeau they’re at least bigger than most college stadiums and don’t look like an alien space ship
 

Visionman

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 28, 2017
Posts:
7,995
Liked Posts:
4,451
Most newly build stadiums are multi-purpose event centers. They are not designed just with football in mind...or even in mind at all, other than having a lot of seats to sell.

The result is a fancy stadium, but a reduced 12th man effect, since every non-sporting event needs the noise to be dampened, not amplified.

Soldier Field may be older and on the smaller side, but last year the fans legitimately were affecting games with the noise. And that wasnt just the Bear-raid siren.

Would you be willing to possibly compromise that 12th man advantage for a new stadium?
 

number51

Señor Member
Donator
Joined:
Aug 25, 2012
Posts:
16,903
Liked Posts:
11,721
Location:
Funk & Wagnalls' porch
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Notre Dame Fighting Irish
Sure let’s ignore the fact that it’s the ugliest and smallest in the NFL with a history of incompetent management for the location.


Ugly is objective, small, who cares, the Rose Bowl Stadium holds 92,000 but neither LA team wants to play there, the Chargers prefer playing in a soccer stadium, dignity health sports park capacity 27,000 much less than SF. "incompetent management" I guess you're talking about field conditions, that could change if the park district felt like making it better, that's not incompetence, that's indifference.

There is no reason to change anything.
 

gilder121

I don't care nearly as much anymore
Donator
Joined:
Sep 9, 2012
Posts:
2,020
Liked Posts:
1,771
Location:
MSP
that location is unbeatable.
I suppose if you live in the city it's probably fine That location is a pain in the ass for me personally (when I lived in the Western suburbs) and the logistics of getting there was a major factor that kept me from going to more games.

Personally, I would love a large dome in the middle of Arlington heights/Rosemont. I know a dome would be contrary to a number of meatball Bear traditions but forget December games for me, I don't feel the need to make myself miserable to prove how tough I am.
 

WestCoastBearsFan

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 25, 2017
Posts:
16,867
Liked Posts:
12,063
My favorite teams
  1. Los Angeles Lakers
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Los Angeles Kings
  1. Clemson Tigers
Most newly build stadiums are multi-purpose event centers. They are not designed just with football in mind...or even in mind at all, other than having a lot of seats to sell.

The result is a fancy stadium, but a reduced 12th man effect, since every non-sporting event needs the noise to be dampened, not amplified.

Soldier Field may be older and on the smaller side, but last year the fans legitimately were affecting games with the noise. And that wasnt just the Bear-raid siren.

Would you be willing to possibly compromise that 12th man advantage for a new stadium?
Lmfao what? They’re are plenty of new stadiums with huge home field advantage. The 2 most notable being Seattle and New Orleans with one being in doors and the other out doors so you can still have home field with a new, and bigger stadium with a roof or with out one.
 

Visionman

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 28, 2017
Posts:
7,995
Liked Posts:
4,451
I suppose if you live in the city it's probably fine That location is a pain in the ass for me personally (when I lived in the Western suburbs) and the logistics of getting there was a major factor that kept me from going to more games.

Personally, I would love a large dome in the middle of Arlington heights/Rosemont. I know a dome would be contrary to a number of meatball Bear traditions but forget December games for me, I don't feel the need to make myself miserable to prove how tough I am.
I prefer the Bears do the best thing for them to win games...
 

Visionman

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 28, 2017
Posts:
7,995
Liked Posts:
4,451
Lmfao what? They’re are plenty of new stadiums with huge home field advantage. The 2 most notable being Seattle and New Orleans with one being in doors and the other out doors so you can still have home field with a new, and bigger stadium with a roof or with out one.
And then there are others like Detroit that sucks for creating crowd noise, because acoustics were designed for things other than football.

Do you really think a new stadium built in Chicago is going to be primarily about what is best for the Bears? It would be about the $$$. Period.
 

WestCoastBearsFan

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 25, 2017
Posts:
16,867
Liked Posts:
12,063
My favorite teams
  1. Los Angeles Lakers
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Los Angeles Kings
  1. Clemson Tigers
Ugly is objective, small, who cares, the Rose Bowl Stadium holds 92,000 but neither LA team wants to play there, the Chargers prefer playing in a soccer stadium, dignity health sports park capacity 27,000 much less than SF. "incompetent management" I guess you're talking about field conditions, that could change if the park district felt like making it better, that's not incompetence, that's indifference.

There is no reason to change anything.
Living in LA I can tell you the only reason nobody wants to play at the rose bowl is because it’s all the way in Pasadena which is about a half hour away from downtown and like 45 mins away from the beach communities. It’s a terrible location but a beautiful stadium that any team would jump at the chance to play at if it wasn’t so far away
 

Penny Traitor

バカでも才能は一つ
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
11,244
Liked Posts:
17,121
Location:
Chicago
If you at least own the stadium it can’t take a literal decade to fix the fucking grass. And it doesn’t have to be an architectural marvel but look at stadiums like the Mercedes Benz stadium in Atlanta, the new stadium in LA, or even lambeau they’re at least bigger than most college stadiums and don’t look like an alien space ship

I thought they fixed the grass when they banned U2 for life.

Also LMAO @ mentioning Lambeau...they still have bleacher seating in 2019!
 

WestCoastBearsFan

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 25, 2017
Posts:
16,867
Liked Posts:
12,063
My favorite teams
  1. Los Angeles Lakers
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Los Angeles Kings
  1. Clemson Tigers
And then there are others like Detroit that sucks for creating crowd noise, because acoustics were designed for things other than football.

Do you really think a new stadium built in Chicago is going to be primarily about what is best for the Bears? It would be about the $$$. Period.
Dude the lions have never been relevant ever. You can’t compare lions fans and bears fans. Plus I’m sure if the McCaskey’s pony up the cash they could have it designed with home field advantage in mind.
 

WestCoastBearsFan

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 25, 2017
Posts:
16,867
Liked Posts:
12,063
My favorite teams
  1. Los Angeles Lakers
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Los Angeles Kings
  1. Clemson Tigers
I thought they fixed the grass when they banned U2 for life.

Also LMAO @ mentioning Lambeau...they still have bleacher seating in 2019!
And yet nobody would objectively say SF is nicer than lambeau
 

Top