Should the Bears leave Soldier Field?

by SoulEater7 on Sep 15, 2009 11:58 PM CDT Comment 23 comments

Ok I know there's no chance and many of you think thats just a crazy headline but seriously if the Chicago Park district continues to be run this way I seriously think some day down the road the Bears should look into getting out of Solder field.

The truth is the Bears are too big for Soldier field.

With the current stadium capacity of 61,500, Soldier Field became the smallest stadium in the NFL when the Indianapolis Colts moved out of the RCA Dome and into Lucas Oil Stadium in 2008. The bathrooms are made for a grade school. The seats are snug and the transportation can be a serious hassle.

Who makes these decisions? The Bears and the Park district and the city?

Don't get me wrong I don't think it's a terrible place to watch a game, actually the view is pretty good. It's the Chicago Park district that is pissing me off.

I realize it's a war memorial but this Tribune article about the Payton family wanting to donate a statute of Walter has angered me.

According to a Payton family spokeswoman, park district officials explained that Soldier Field and the area surrounding it is to be preserved strictly as a memorial to war veterans. There also is concern a Payton statue outside of Soldier Field might diminish the stature of other former Bears Hall of Famers.-CT

Thats funny other than the corridors there are no references of the Bears rich History, like John Madden said on opening night against the Packers when the Bears moved back into Soldiers field. You wouldn't know anyone played for the Bears just looking at the stadium. No retired numbers any place inside the playing field.

The Bears should move out of Soldier Field and build their own stadium that they own.

The relationship between the Bears and the Chicago Park district needs to end.

Five days from playing the Super Bowl Champions and they just laid down sod for the new season? YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING! Why doesn't this City get it? Both teams have millions of dollars invested in these players and you just laid sod down five days before an NFL game? This city has lost its damn mind! Sod takes weeks to set.

I could see a day when the Bears move out of Soldier field. Let the city have it and the Bears can build Bears Stadium or McDonalds Stadium that could house a Super Bowl and even have a roof. They have the money. Do it right. They need to act like a charter franchise! Do it your own way. If they have to move off the lake shore so be it.

I can dream I guess. I don't think it's a stretch if some day down the road the Bears will have out grown Soldier field.

1 recs | Comment 23 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

we won't move out

it’s funny when you think about it. we now have the lowest stadium capacity, and yet soldier field is still one of the most challenging places to play at. And when did soldier field get renovated, like 2003? Anyone want another expansion?

I hope the bears never leave soldier field. The tradition there and the aura of the stadium are great things. I wish the bears organization could make sure the Park and Rec people aren’t tards though.

by Nih1lus on Sep 16, 2009 12:31 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

We lost seats in the last "expansion"

by GoCubbies34 on Sep 16, 2009 8:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

wont they expand soldier field

if the olympics come to chicago?

by Puppet on Sep 16, 2009 1:04 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Impossible

Unless by ‘down the road’ you mean sometime in the 2030’s.

With the current stadium capacity of 61,500, Soldier Field became the smallest stadium in the NFL when the Indianapolis Colts moved out of the RCA Dome and into Lucas Oil Stadium in 2008. The bathrooms are made for a grade school. The seats are snug and the transportation can be a serious hassle.

Who makes these decisions? The Bears and the Park district and the city?

With all due respect, where were you back in the first part of the decade? All of this was discussed ad nauseum. We’ve all known that Soldier Field would be the smallest NFL venue since the plans were first unveiled. It’s because of the columns, the ‘history’, of the place.

wont they expand soldier field if the olympics come to chicago?

Absolutely not. How can they? They just renovated the thing! It is what it is, and it’ll be that way for a LONG time.

As far as I can find, it was announced at the time that the Bears would sign a 30-year lease to play in the new building. That means they’ll be there through 2032, I believe. What could anyone expect when the Illinois taxpayers (sports authority tax body) pony up $400-odd million to renovate the place specifically for an NFL team?

by BullsFanInSeattle on Sep 16, 2009 7:01 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

if you have money

like chicago would if the olympics came here, you could renovate soldier field a thousand times

by Puppet on Sep 16, 2009 8:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i like the stadium

although i hope they put up a sweetness statue somewhere. the south end of the stadium has more than enough bears history draped all over the place to satisfy me. lots of entertaining pictures of leather headed bears kicking ass. i think the view is awesome; the only bone i would pick is the shitty playing surface. that is a real problem.

i guess living here i just couldn’t imagine da team playing somewhere else away from the lakefront.

by reefermadness3 on Sep 16, 2009 7:08 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

sod

I don’t know anything about the politics of Soldier Field but I know this – any pro football team in the NFL that can’t keep their field properly sodded is incompetent and cheap in the landscaping department. Anyone knows you can’t lay fresh sod a few days before a pro football game and expect the sod to root and take hold. There will be huge divots the size of pie plates flying all over the field when the Bears take on the Steelers. It seems pretty much anyone within a 100 mile radius can use Soldier Field, and football is almost an afterthought. I like the venue and don’t care that the seating is less than other places, but that playing surface sucks. I don’t want them to put in fake turf either, but I wish there was some way they could limit who plays on it and when and give the sod a chance to root.

"Chance favors the prepared mind." - Pasteur

by Maelvampyre on Sep 16, 2009 8:09 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

why would they???

With few seats and high demand…the ticket prices are high and the management can make money…it is simple economics…especially since they just renovated a few years ago

by EArcella19 on Sep 16, 2009 8:35 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

It also all but assures sellouts so there are no blackouts which means even more ad revenue from TV.

Most of the stadiums that were built in the last 15 years or so had smaller capacities than the previous stadiums so they would be filled and the TV dollars could be realized. The NFL learned it’s lesson from the L.A. Coliseum which always looked empty because it was so big. Empty seats don’t send the message that the league wants to drive home and really does take away from the excitement of the game.

While I would prefer natural turf, it’s unrealistic to have it at Soldier Field because of the other events the City puts on there to generate revenue. They should put in the new Field-Turf surface since the other events will never cease and probably will increase if the City of Chicago has their way.

by BearFan611 on Sep 16, 2009 11:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

They can't because the soccer teams that play there want grass.

by SoulEater7 on Sep 16, 2009 11:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd have to believe that if there was a vote, the Bears would get more consideration

than a bunch of guys who play a sport where you can’t use your hands. I don’t care how many kids play, the ad revenue and corporate consideration of a flagship NFL franchise will always outweigh soccer. I usually don’t try to offend anyone on this site, but that sport is the most boring thing ever invented. Even surpassing an evening with my in-laws!

by BearFan611 on Sep 16, 2009 11:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Soccer?

Screw soccer!

The Fire don’t play there anymore, so to hell with the Soccer teams!

by Lester A. Wiltfong Jr. on Sep 16, 2009 11:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Who really gives a rat fart about "Commy-Ball"

Which team brings in more revenue, The Bears or The Fire???? The Bears need to kick the Chicago Park District in the teeth and tell them to "Lose the grass or lose the cash!!!!!"

I’m sorry the fact that Soccer is being force-fed to our country when obviously we don’t care bugs the living crap out of me.

The USA has about as much interest in soccer as we do in converting to the Metric System of Measurement.

Of course their is heighted interest in World Cup years just as their is heighted interest in short-track speed skating during Olympic Years. Why, because we like to see Old Glory flying above everyone else’s flags at the medal podium, but durring non olympic/world cup years the interest of the general public is minimal at best.

My wife doesn’t like football, but she watches the Superbowl. Why, because it’s the Superbowl! Same concept for the Olympics and World Cup.

Unreasonable people make life difficult...

by WisBearsFan34 on Sep 16, 2009 12:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hm

I wouldn’t leave Soldier Field anyway. Too much history there, and if the Bears left it, you know the city wouldn’t build them anywhere else to go.

That said, the Bears signed a lease until like 2030, so the city will get paid a lot of money regardless as to if the Bears are happy with the field or not. I don’t think anyone is going to pressure the city into changing unless there is a direct financial benefit to the park district.

by Virto on Sep 16, 2009 4:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just a sidenote, there isn't that much history there...

Walter Peyton’s era and the ‘85 Bears were the only posittive Bear history in Soldier Field, The rest of the Golden Age of Bears football was in Wrigley Field. Sayers and Butkus played the prime years of their careers in Wrigley Field, the Bears didn’t move to Soldier Field until the early 70’s. The place was a dump that accommodated around 100,000 people at one time and was very much in disrepair. If it wasn’t for the Bears moving there, they might have knocked it down anyway before it received landmark status.

Just saying….

by BearFan611 on Sep 16, 2009 5:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm well aware

of the timeline involving the Bear’s move to Soldier Field. You’re right, compared to the life of the franchise, 30+ years might not seem like much.

I bet the Bears would never get a new stadium just because Soldier Field would be left to rot, unless they left the city of Chicago.

No matter what, there is another 20 years of play that will happen behind the pillars based on the lease.

by Virto on Sep 16, 2009 5:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hell No!

How could you even say such a thing? I love Soldier Field man!

by Gesiakob on Sep 16, 2009 9:54 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Blasphemy!

Just give them a new field for god’s sake and there would be no problem. Soldier Field is a GREAT place to watch a game; not a bad seat in the house. The frickin’ president of the united states is a Bears fan, maybe that douche should step in and get them a new field like he got the Adler Planetarium a new projector before he was president. Let’s go Barack, pull your weight!

by PolishSausage.Ditka.Bears. on Sep 16, 2009 5:00 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Really?

The President of the United States needs to drop everything so his favorite football team can get a better stadium? This is what you really want for him to do?

/please no PoFlaWa

by wennington4 on Sep 16, 2009 8:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

There was a bit of sarcasm in there if you didn't notice.

Wtf is PoFLaWa?

by PolishSausage.Ditka.Bears. on Sep 16, 2009 10:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Didn't notice it, mea culpa

PoFlaWa= Political Flame War. Political argumentation with someone set in their ways is futile

by wennington4 on Sep 17, 2009 3:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Waste of Taxpayers' dollars

I love the columns, but Soldier Field is a D-Grade stadium with some horrible seats and little league grass and lacking sufficient capacity. That being said, I trouble believing the McCaskey’s will drop a billion dollars on building a modern stadium, and I think we all can think of something which deserves the taxpayers’ dollars more than making a more comfortable stadium. We should ride out Soldier Field as long as we can.

by SenatorSteve on Sep 16, 2009 7:16 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

WTF

Is this world coming to?
Is everything these days about money and getting as many people in a stadium at once? Doesnt anyone care about tradition and history?
The Cowboys stadium is nice, but id cost over a Billion dollars! It is said to be a very quiet stadium because it dwarfs the people cheering inside it.
Soldier is a memorial! A historical landmark, that was renovated to be nicer. I’d rather have 61,500 Bears fans cheering next to me that 160,000 in an overpriced tin can.
History and tradition should trump $$$ and flash, just like the bears franchise. We get by with little, and are still competative. The Cowboys pay thru the nose, and still suck ass!
Give me tradition and history any day.
Bear Down

See you in section 432, row 3, seat 6 on Nov 8.

by Bearsguy34 on Sep 16, 2009 11:00 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs