(670 The Score) Friends of the Parks, the non-profit organization that has worked diligently to protect the lakefront landscape and serves as an environmental advocate for parkland across Chicago and Cook County, has called upon the Bears to slow their pursuit of a new stadium just south of Soldier Field and spend more time engaging with the community on what’s best for all involved.
“What we need right now is open, clear and free discourse driven by the public instead of private interests,” Friends of the Parks said in a statement released to 670 The Score. “Presently, our main reaction is frustration at the apparent urgency for the Bears to have a new plan in place after saying repeatedly they wanted to leave the city to develop an entertainment district. It has been a mere three months since news broke that they were maybe having a serious change of heart.
“Discussions about a project that will require significant public investment that could profoundly affect the literal and figurative landscape of Chicago and our neighborhoods should not be rushed like this. It is a curious contrast to how long it takes to approve and plan a new neighborhood park!”
On Monday, news broke that the Bears have pledged $2 billion toward building a new a publicly owned domed stadium just south of Soldier Field. It marked a stark shift in focus from their previous exploration of a stadium in Arlington Heights, where they own the 326-acre Arlington Park.
The Bears’ pledge of money has intensified the conversation surrounding where they’ll play and what comes next, and Friends of the Parks could potentially stand as a roadblock to the organization’s hopes. Friends of the Parks previously waged a legal battle that played a key part in preventing the construction of the proposed George Lucas museum on the Museum Campus.
Here’s the full statement from Friends of the Parks regarding the Bears' proposal for a new stadium along the lakefront:
Friends of the Parks is proud to be known as defenders of our open, clear and free lakefront that serves public interests, not private enterprises. It is easy to take our 26 miles of a continuous parks and path system — one of our city’s crown jewels – for granted. But a look to other cities with waterfronts dominated by structures of industry or luxury is a testament to the vision and ceaseless, often politically unpopular, efforts of our forebears.
The fact that our lakefront has been protected from development is what makes it attractive to development. Without these protections we likely would not be discussing a new stadium on the lakefront as it would already be built up and privatized.
What we need right now is “open, clear and free” discourse driven by the public instead of private interests. Presently, our main reaction is frustration at the apparent urgency for the Bears to have a new plan in place after saying repeatedly they wanted to leave the city to develop an "entertainment district." It has been a mere three months since news broke that they were maybe having a serious change of heart.
Discussions about a project that will require significant public investment that could profoundly affect the literal and figurative landscape of Chicago and our neighborhoods should not be rushed like this. It is a curious contrast to how long it takes to approve and plan a new neighborhood park!
No one wants to see the Chicago Bears leave the city, but we are being asked to respond as if there are no other alternative sites available or even in the vicinity of the existing stadium. And while we appreciate that their announcement includes a nod to open space, we notice an important omission.
The Bears have repeatedly prioritized commercial development in conjunction with a new stadium — it’s part of what drove them to buy and raze land in Arlington Heights. Ted Phillips, former Bears president and CEO, spoke of transforming the 326 acres into a “wonderful 365-day-a-year entertainment district.”
What new entertainment district are they imagining for the lakefront?
We are interested in conversations about other locations more suitable for development. We are Friends of the Parks, not just Friends of the Lakefront. Our work spans the city. We care about how investment and developments impact communities across Chicago, especially ones that have suffered historical disinvestment.
For example, if the Bears really want to make a generational impact while keeping lakefront views, the Michael Reese site potentially offers the best of both worlds — the development of a state-of-the-art stadium surrounded by a residential, business and entertainment district in a community steeped in rich, Black history. It also is accessible by bus, train, car, bike, scooter and walking without disrupting the lakefront.
FOTP has repeatedly been referred in news coverage as the key line of defense the Bears will have to break through to achieve their goal of a lakefront stadium. We have already started receiving angry emails about how we kept the Lucas Museum of Narrative Arts out of Chicago and that we better not cause the Bears to leave. We also get plenty of thank yous.
We did not force Lucas out of Chicago. He left because he would not consider alternatives to building on the lakefront, on land protected by the Public Trust Doctrine, in an area already slated to be developed into a park. We hope the Bears will show more vision and patience. Instead of picking up their ball and going home, we urge them to toss balls around with stakeholders to find a way to stay home in a location that preserves our open, clear and free lakefront and is a boon for neighborhood development.
Sometimes, FOTP is characterized as an organization that says no. We also say: “Hold on, let’s talk about this, work to ensure that all stakeholders are at the table (or on the field), explore a range of options and be creative.” We look forward to courageous conversations ahead, including with the Chicago Bears.
Local Chicago, IL
Most Popular
Comments / 0