Always put transit first. Push for connection, not isolation. And above all, be patient.
Those were a few of the guiding principles on how to approach stadium development in the Chicago Architecture Center’s newest report, “Win/Win: The New Game Plan for Urban Stadiums,” released this month.
The center assembled a working group comprised of business executives, civic leaders, urban planners, architects and others to study the bids for new, or expanded, stadiums by the Chicago Bears, Blackhawks, Bulls, Fire and White Sox.
They also spent three months studying stadium developments across the U.S. to see what worked and what failed. And the group found the best model was in Chicago — Wrigley Field and Lake View.
“Instead of treating stadiums as standalone facilities requiring public support, we propose thinking about them as anchors for thriving neighborhoods,” Chicago Architecture Center president and CEO Eleanor Gorski said in the report.
It’s an idea the report dubs The Chicago Model, defined as “teams we love, playing in stadiums we love, anchoring communities we love.”
The crux of the Chicago Model is a stadium district that creates a bustling neighborhood throughout the year — not just on game days or when sports teams are in season.
“If [the stadium] is programmed the right way, it can actually be a real win for everybody,” Michael Wood, the CAC’s director of civic and industry affairs, said. “A big finding for us, too, is understanding that the best sports facilities will also leave room for things that have nothing to do with sports. You really want something for everyone.”
The model is made up of six design principles: walkability, a push for greater density, planning transit access at the start of a development, connecting stadiums to the neighborhood, keeping public spaces open and accessible and having patience for future development to grow out of stadium districts.
Wood said the principles are like a compass and should guide future development, given that not every stadium site will perfectly fit the guidelines. Some, like Rate Field, are “stadium islands” surrounded by parking, while others like Soldier Field are more limited by their surroundings.
The working group evaluated five sites across Chicago that are either proposed or slated for new development — Rate Field, Soldier Field, The 78, the United Center and the former Michael Reese Hospital site. Wood said there was no clear winner that completely met the Chicago Model because each site has its own challenges, in addition to potential growth.
“The most attractive stadium for us is going to be one that has the most heterogeneous mix [of] ownership, of types of people living nearby, types of businesses making a living off of a team, or a team making a … great neighborhood off of what private enterprise is doing,” Wood said. “We kind of left more with the idea about coordination and city building as the real true north in this situation, and not so much about a perfect recipe for each location.”
The Chicago Fire plans to build a $650 million privately-funded soccer stadium at The 78, a long vacant lot in the South Loop. The 22,000-seat stadium is being bankrolled by its billionaire owner Joe Mansueto. The Chicago City Council approved the proposal in September.
Also approved this year was the 1901 Project, the United Center owners’ plans to create an entertainment-rich district around the Bulls’ and Blackhawks’ home. Phase One will include a new music venue and public green space, with later phases adding residential and commercial uses.
The two proposals include some of the multiuse components the CAC report argues are necessary for a successful stadium district.
Scott Goodman, principal of Farpoint Development, made public in March his vision to build a Bronzeville stadium for the Bears and an adjacent mixed-use development. At the time, Goodman acknowledged he hadn’t met with the team or finalized financing for the $3.2 billion project, but it was a Hail Mary attempt to keep the Bears in Chicago as they eye a move to Arlington Heights.
The architecture center’s study called the Bronzeville lakefront site a “sleeping giant” that could use an anchor institution to kickstart surrounding development. It said the anchor could be an entertainment venue or training facility — not just a potential stadium.
Wood pointed to women’s professional sports teams, which are fast-growing and often want to be in control of their own facilities. Those stadiums are sometimes smaller and could more easily fit on the 48.6-acre Bronzeville site than a new football stadium.
“The value of sports as an attractor is so high that we should be investing in coordinating around them — particularly around emerging sports, where these are teams that are trying to plant their flag,” Wood said.
The study acknowledges that Soldier Field isn’t the best fit for the Chicago Model, but argues public access issues to the stadium will exist whether the Bears stay or leave.
The study proposes pedestrian bridges over DuSable Lake Shore Drive and further development near the 18th Street Metra station to help connect the stadium to the surrounding area and improve public access.
There’s similar opportunities at Rate Field to better connect the White Sox stadium to Bridgeport, Wood said.
“When the [parking] lease comes due in the next few years, there’s a chance to rethink the entire idea — hopefully with the White Sox involved,” Wood said. “We should look at it with a different set of lens, and say, ‘That’s prime real estate that’s really well serviced by transit, and we should do something with it.’ In terms of the six Chicago Model principles, there’s nothing that couldn’t happen at Rate Field.”
One of the biggest takeaways from other cities and their stadium development efforts was the high level of coordination across public and private sectors. It’s something that makes development stronger, Wood said.
“Thoughtful development is happening everywhere. It’s not just a Chicago thing, but there’s no reason it can’t happen in Chicago,” he said. “What we found most exciting was that leaning into coordination changes the calculus from stadium development to neighborhood development, and that’s what the win is for Chicagoans.”