Determined to stay in Chicago and stymied at their preferred lakefront site, the Bears are at least considering the possibility of building a domed stadium on the old Michael Reese Hospital site to jump-start development of a new neighborhood around it, sources confirmed Tuesday.
Seven months ago, Bears President Kevin Warren summarily dismissed the 48.6-acre Reese site — acquired by the city for an Olympic Village that was never built — even after Friends of the Parks and the Civic Federation had urged the team to consider it.
Warren said the Reese property was among 10 to 12 possible stadium sites the Bears considered before settling on the lakefront just south of Soldier Field. The Reese site was rejected at the time because it was “very narrow” and “doesn’t work from an NFL standpoint” because the stadium would have to be built over an active rail line. The marshaling yards for trucks serving McCormick Place also would have to be relocated.
But with the Bears hurry-up offense on their first-choice site stalled in Springfield, the team now is listening to an aggressive pitch from Scott Goodman, a principal of the Farpoint Development-led team that purchased the Reese site from the city, two sources confirmed Tuesday.
The Bears’ renewed interest in the site was first reported by Crain’s Chicago Business.
Tarrah Cooper, a spokesperson for the Bears, refused to comment on the report. Goodman could not be reached for comment.
‘So many moving parts’
Senior mayoral adviser Jason Lee said Mayor Brandon Johnson is “aware of conversations” between the Bears and Goodman’s development team and is “monitoring” those talks.
“There’s a lot of moving parts on all fronts,” Lee said Tuesday. “I’m sure the community will be an active participant if any conversations proceed.”
Johnson served as lead blocker for the Bears’ preferred lakefront site, but that proposal has gained no traction in Springfield.
At a Tuesday afternoon news conference, Johnson refused to confirm whether the Bears had shifted their stadium focus to Reese, choosing instead to emphasize the general benefits of building a stadium somewhere in the city.
Earlier in the day, Lee also had refused to comment when asked what Johnson now views as the potential benefits of the Reese stadium site.
“I can’t get into that just because there’s so many moving parts. These questions are best for the Bears franchise,” Lee said.
Two other sources familiar with the talks said the Bears are determined to stay in Chicago and have always been more open to shifting their focus away from the lakefront than Warren’s April comments seemed to suggest.
“They’ve been clear: They have a goal. They were also going to maintain flexibility so that they could ultimately achieve the goal,” one source said. “This is consistent with what they always said they would do. The media story might be a little bit behind the reality of what’s going on. This is not like a new development. They never fully dismissed anything. You can’t when you’re working on something like this.”
Before unveiling their dream lakefront dome earlier this year, the Bears had seemed ready to head to Arlington Heights. The team signed a deal in 2021 to buy the 326-acre Arlington International Racecourse property, with the intent of putting a new stadium there, surrounded by a mixed-use development. They closed on the $197.2 million purchase last year.
On Tuesday, Arlington Heights Mayor Tom Hayes said that absent any official word from team officials on interest in the Reese site, “I don’t put a whole lot of stock into it.”
Hayes said he remains optimistic the team could finally strike an agreement with northwest suburban school districts on its property tax assessment, which has stalled talks that once seemed all but certain to have the team breaking ground there.
“We here in Arlington Heights continue to believe that the Arlington Park site is the best location for a new Bears stadium and we’re continuing to aggressively pursue that. I’m encouraged where things are at with the Bears and hopefully we keep moving in that direction.” (edited)
‘Beautiful’ renderings of stadium concept at Reese site
Ald. Lamont Robinson (4th), whose ward includes the Michael Reese site, said he’s seen “beautiful” renderings of a proposed Bears stadium on that property.
“Scott Goodman and team did a really great job of doing what the Bears asked him to do. The Bears want to be on the lakefront. Being able to be at the stadium and still see the lake, be a part of the lake and the open space is really a great rendering,” Robinson said.
“It would lift the boats on the South Side. We need development,” he said. “We need affordable housing. We also need retail. … I was born there in ’82. If you look at that site now — where you know that there was a thriving community there, an outstanding hospital — to see it in the condition that it’s in right now is very sad. Anything … put forth there is exciting.”
Robinson said his focus now is on residents of the 4th Ward in general and on advisory council members who “put a lot of hard work and time into coming up with a plan for that site” in particular.
“It is a location that the community deserves to have developed. This site has been vacant for 20-plus years. And the South Side of Chicago, particularly Bronzeville, needs a jolt of economic development,” Robinson said.
“If we can create a community there that has retail, some housing and the stadium and the community is OK with it, as the representative, I would be OK with it,” said Robinson.
State Sen. Robert Peters, the South Side Democrat whose district includes both Soldier Field and the Michael Reese site, said he hasn’t gotten details on the latest proposal, but he suggested it could get a warmer reception from Springfield legislators who have flatly rejected publicly financing the Bears’ aspirations to build on the lakefront just south of Soldier Field.
“If they’re bringing something to the table with broad economic development benefits and affordable housing, that sure beats what the Bears had been proposing before,” Peters said.
“They were asking 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,” Peters continued. “Here, there is at least an argument to be made around building a community center and bringing affordable senior housing to an area that has needed development for 20 to 30 years now.”
How will Springfield react?
State legislators are in Springfield this week for the fall veto session. There’s been no discussion of any stadium legislation, Peters said.
A spokesperson for Gov. JB Pritzker said his “stance on the stadium issue remains unchanged regardless of possible locations” — namely, that the Bears should not expect to receive any public dollars for a new home.
State Rep. Kam Buckner, D-Chicago, whose district includes both sites, said he finds a potential Reese proposal “a much more compelling one than Arlington Heights, and one with less impediments than the current lakefront proposal.”
“Historically, the Bears haven’t been as engaged with the city as they should be. To me, this is another overture from [Bears President] Kevin Warren showing that he wants to get this right, and be woven into the tapestry of the city,” Buckner said.
“It’s still lakefront-adjacent. They can add more park space over there if they do it right way. I’m excited to see a full vision,” Buckner said.
Buckner said he hasn’t been presented a proposal, but added developers at Farpoint showed him some ideas several months ago.
“I think the initial concerns the Bears had were not as deeply rooted as people may think,” Buckner said. “And I think they’ve taken a deeper look and realized they can come up with some plans to make it work.”
Buckner said he expected the news to spur some “tangential conversations” during the fall veto session in Springfield, but as always, it’ll come down to how the Bears could finance it.
“They know they need to put more skin in the game,” he said.
Civic Federation President Joe Ferguson is among those who have publicly urged the Bears to consider the Reese site, a choice which could jump-start development in an area of the city that needs the help.
He noted the Reese site is eligible for tax increment financing subsidies “to accommodate — not only the stadium, but the building of a whole new economic anchor point that is the gateway to the South Side,” Ferguson said in April.
The Bronzeville Lakefront project
Other parts of the Michael Reese site are being developed. Infrastructure work kicked off in March 2023 on the $4.3 billion Bronzeville Lakefront project. The extension of roads and utilities is backed by a city pledge of up to $60 million from bond issues.
Gin Kilgore, acting executive director of Friends of the Parks, also has urged the Bears to consider the Reese site to avoid what could be a lengthy legal battle centered on the Lakefront Protection Ordinance that prohibits new construction east of Lake Shore Drive.
“We bring up the Michael Reese site because it’s also something that we were proposing for the Lucas museum. And … it’s a site that needs development,” Kilgore told the Sun-Times earlier this year.
The Michael Reese site would still provide TV viewers with “that lakefront backdrop” the Bears and the NFL covet for game-day broadcasts, Kilgore said.
Kilgore’s predecessor, Juanita Irizarry, stood toe to toe with then-Mayor Rahm Emanuel in the battle over the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art, once envisioned for Chicago.
Emanuel was furious about the Irizarry-led legal battle that forced “Star Wars” movie mogul George Lucas to cancel plans to build a $743 million museum on 17 acres of lakefront parkland, derisively branding her group “Friends of the Parking Lot.”