Bears reconsider Michael Reese site for new lakefront stadium

Determined to stay in Chicago and stymied on the lakefront, the Bears are at least considering the possibility of building a domed stadium to hit the ground running. development of a new district at the old Michael Reese Hospital site, sources confirmed Tuesday.

Seven months ago, Bears President Kevin Warren summarily rejected the 48.6-acre Reese site — purchased by the city for an Olympic village that was never built — even after Friends of the Parks and the Civic Federation joined in team had urged to consider this.

Warren said the Reese site was one of 10 to 12 possible stadium locations the Bears considered before settling on the lakefront just south of Soldier Field. The Reese site was rejected because it was “very narrow” and “doesn’t work from an NFL standpoint” because the stadium would have to be built over an active railroad line. The truck yards that serve McCormick Place would also have to be relocated.

But now that the Bears have made a rushing attack on their top-choice site in Springfield, the team is now listening to an aggressive pitch from Scott Goodman, a director of the Farpoint Development-led team that purchased the Reese site from the city, two years ago. sources confirmed this on Tuesday.

The Bears’ renewed interest in the site was first reported from Crain’s Chicago Business.

Tarrah Cooper, a spokesperson for the Bears, declined to comment on the report. Goodman could not be reached for comment.

Senior mayoral advisor Jason Lee said Mayor Brandon Johnson is “aware of conversations” between the Bears’ development team and Goodman and is “monitoring” those conversations.

“There are a lot of moving parts on all fronts,” Lee said Tuesday. “I am confident the community will be an active participant as conversations take place.”

Johnson served as the lead blocker for the Bears’ favorite spot on the lakebut that proposal has not gained any ground in Springfield.

Lee declined to comment when asked what Johnson now sees as the potential benefits of the Reese Stadium location.

“I can’t comment on that just because there are so many moving parts. These questions are the best for the Bears franchise,” Lee said.

Two other sources familiar with the talks said the Bears are committed to staying in Chicago and have always been more open to shifting their focus from the waterfront than Warren’s comment in April seemed to suggest.

“They have been clear: they have a goal. They also wanted to maintain flexibility so that they could ultimately achieve the goal,” the source said.

“This is consistent with what they always said they would do. The media narrative may be a little behind the reality of what is going on. This does not seem like a new development. They never rejected anything completely. That’s not possible when you’re working on something like this.”

State Sen. Robert Peters, the South Side Democrat whose district includes both Soldier Field and the Michael Reese site, said he has not received any details on the latest proposal, but he suggested it could get a warmer reception from Springfield lawmakers who have flatly rejected publicly funding the Bears’ lakefront aspirations.

“If they bring something to the table that has broad benefits for economic development and affordable housing, then that’s certainly better than what the Bears previously proposed,” Peters said.

“They asked for billions of dollars from the state to have their own little playground next to their current publicly funded stadium, with little economic benefit to the surrounding community. At the very least, an argument can be made here around building a community center and bringing affordable senior housing to an area that has needed development for 20 to 30 years now.”

State lawmakers head to Springfield this week for the fall veto session. There has been no discussion about stadium legislation, Peters said.

Civic Federation President Joe Ferguson is among those who have publicly urged the Bears to consider the Reese sitea choice that could boost development in a part of the city that needs help.

“There are alternatives (to the lakeshore). And we’re not talking about the alternatives right now,” Ferguson told the Sun-Times in April.

He noted that the Reese site is eligible for tax increment financing grants “to accommodate not only the stadium, but the construction of an entirely new economic anchor that will be the gateway to the South Side,” Ferguson said.

He added: “It could be implemented as an economic development project… that includes a stadium that keeps the Bears in Chicago and that includes much more creative, less burdensome sources of financing… It actually brings together one of the most successful sources of financing online again. valuable pieces of urban real estate that are currently not performing at all from a fiscal perspective.”

Other parts of the Michael Reese are being developed. Infrastructure work lstarted in March 2023 on the $4.3 billion Bronzeville Lakefront project. The expansion of roads and utilities is supported by a city pledge of up to $60 million from bond issues.

Gin Kilgore, acting director of Friends of the Parks, has also urged the Bears to consider the Reese location to avoid a protracted legal battle surrounding the Lakefront Protection Ordinance that bans new construction east of Lake Shore Drive.

“We’re bringing up the Michael Reese site because it’s also something we proposed for the Lucas Museum. And … it is a site that needs development,” Kilgore told the Sun-Times earlier this year.

“The lakefront doesn’t need economic development. Improvements are needed…We need better access to the lakefront.”

The Michael Reese site would still give TV viewers “that lakeside backdrop” the Bears and the NFL crave for game-day broadcasts, she said.

Kilgore’s predecessor, Juanita Irizarry, faced then-Mayor Rahm Emanuel in the battle for the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art, once planned for Chicago.

Emanuel was furious about it the Irizarry-led legal battle that forced “Star Wars” movie mogul George Lucas to cancel his plans to build a $743 million museum on a 17-acre lakeside park, derisively calling her group “Friends of the Parking Lot.”

Contributions: Mitchell Armentrout