Illinois politicians are considering the Chicago Bears’ proposal to build a new $3.2 billion publicly owned stadium on Chicago’s lakefront. The proposed stadium would seat 65,000 for football, 70,000 with standing room, and 77,000 for basketball, with a fixed translucent roof and glass wall offering views of the skyline. It would replace Soldier Field and host events year-round. If approved, the stadium would open in 2028 and would be paid for in part by $900 million from the state.
The Bears plan to contribute $2 billion towards the stadium, with an additional $300 million requested from the NFL. Public funding would come from $900 million in bonds issued by the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority, to be repaid over 40 years through the city’s hotel tax. However, the hotel tax has not been sufficient to repay past stadium projects, and borrowing the additional $900 million would add substantial interest costs, potentially raising the total cost of the stadium project to nearly $4.8 billion.
State lawmakers have expressed skepticism towards the Bears’ proposal, with Governor J.B. Pritzker calling it a “non-starter.” House Speaker Emanuel Welch and Senate President Don Harmon also believe the chances of passage are low. Some groups, like the Friends of the Parks, question the rush for a new stadium on the lakefront and suggest it could be located elsewhere. The economic impacts of the stadium, including job creation and regional economic benefits, are a key part of the Bears’ argument for public investment.
The Bears have not specified what they would expect in return for their investment, but Governor Pritzker has mentioned that they are seeking revenue from other events at the stadium. If the Chicago stadium proposal does not move forward, the Bears had previously pursued building a stadium in Arlington Heights, combined with a mixed-use development. While the suburban project stalled over disagreements on property taxes, village officials believe the Bears may return to the suburbs in the future. Mayor Tom Hayes stated they are prepared to welcome the Bears back if they choose to pursue a stadium project in Arlington Heights.
Overall, the debate over the proposed Chicago Bears stadium raises questions about public funding for large-scale projects, the economic impacts of sports facilities, and the priorities of state leaders when allocating resources. As discussions continue, it remains to be seen whether the Bears’ proposal will gain enough support to move forward or if alternative solutions will be explored.
