The Bears’ recent stadium presentation, reminiscent of past pledges of no new taxes under Mayor Burnham, evoked a sense of familiarity.
During a recent presentation by Chicago Bears executives, as they showcased glossy renderings and praised the advantages of constructing a new stadium on the city’s lakefront, there were striking similarities to remarks made by some of these same leaders a year-and-a-half earlier to a suburban audience at John Hersey High School in Arlington Heights.
Though the proposed locations for a new Bears stadium differed, representatives from the NFL franchise arrived at both events armed with PowerPoint presentations and scripted talking points, seeking public subsidies to support the envisioned mega-projects.
Here’s a breakdown of some key similarities and differences in messaging between each presentation.
**City vs. Suburbs**
Bears Chairman George McCaskey delivered the opening remarks at both gatherings — first at Hersey High School on September 8, 2022, and later at Soldier Field’s United Club on April 24, 2024 — tailored to the respective audiences.
At the suburban event, attended by a predominantly blue and orange-clad public, McCaskey reminisced about his family’s ties to the suburbs and his grandfather’s interest in the Arlington Park racetrack property for a stadium site.
Fast forward to the Soldier Field presentation, an invitation-only affair with prominent city figures in attendance, McCaskey emphasized the Bears’ commitment to Chicago’s character and history, highlighting the importance of investing in the city.
**Mixed Uses**
Both urban and suburban proposals outlined plans for enclosed stadiums, citing U.S. Bank Stadium in Minneapolis as a model. Presenters discussed hosting major events like the Super Bowl and Final Four, alongside provisions for open spaces and recreational amenities.
While both projects included ideas for restaurants, retail, and hotels, the suburban plan also considered a sportsbook, offices, and housing.
**Allusions to Daniel Burnham**
Officials referenced famed architect Daniel Burnham at both presentations, drawing inspiration from his iconic 1909 Plan of Chicago and emphasizing the integration of infrastructure with open space.
**How to Pay for It All**
With estimated costs of $5 billion for the suburban site and $4.7 billion for the urban project, the Bears sought public subsidies for both ventures. However, they assured no increase in property taxes for residents in either location.
Complex financing mechanisms proposed by the Bears raised concerns among taxpayers, particularly regarding property tax breaks and refinancing strategies.
**Touting the Benefits**
Consultant studies commissioned by the Bears projected significant economic benefits for both locations, including job creation and revenue generation during construction and long-term operation.
**Plan B?**
When asked about backup plans, Bears executives reiterated their focus on the primary sites and expressed no intention of considering alternative locations or renovation of Soldier Field.
In essence, while the settings may have differed, the core themes of the Bears’ stadium presentations remained consistent, underscoring the team’s commitment to finding a suitable home while navigating the complexities of public financing and community engagement.
