Two years after the fact:

a new stadium at Soldier Field instead of a retractable dome at McCormick Place (that could have been used for conventions, Super Bowl, Final Four, etc., while still allowing all the "Bear weather" that an open dome can afford, any time the team wanted to keep it open):

short sighted or right move? (consider the NY Jets' west side of Manhattan plans)

i hate dome stadiums. i'm not in love with the new soldier field but i rather have a real field then a dome.

But think of the things that could come to Chicago.

Well I guess if we want to goto a Super Bowl we can brave a trip through Detroit in a few years.

i hate dome stadiums. i'm not in love with the new soldier field but i rather have a real field then a dome.

agreed. thing is: NOBODY builds domed stadiums anymore. They build retractable domes. If the Bears had gone into a domed complex at McCormick Place, there is nothing that would have prevented them from playing outside all season. Even in the playoffs (ha ha). Meanwhile, the stadium could have been used for a variety of purposes that required an indoor space.

When the new Soldier field went up, the retractable era was well underway. A fixed dome would have made no sense, but with this type of thing, you can have your cake and eat it, too, includin with a grass field.

I like Soldier Field. I amazingly even like its exterior. But I still think we didn't get the bang for our buck.

I hate domes. What we needed out of solider field was a viable place to play outdoor football with better ammentities and sight lines than we had with the old soldier field. Mission accomplished.

Soldier field is ugly from the outside, but it is awesome on the inside. So I don't think the decision not to build a dome was short sighted...just served the needs of a football team.

I hate domes. What we needed out of solider field was a viable place to play outdoor football with better ammentities and sight lines than we had with the old soldier field. Mission accomplished.

Soldier field is ugly from the outside, but it is awesome on the inside. So I don't think the decision not to build a dome was short sighted...just served the needs of a football team.

JB, I find the interior configuration of Soldier Field one of the finest (if not the finest) in the NFL; it probably would not have had the same look if it were domed.

Still, what would your objection be to a retractable dome, especially if the Bears decide never to use it? If you look at football stadiums in places like Seattle and Houston, when they're open, they are just like any other outdoor stadium.

I guess I'm saying, wouldn't it have been a win/win situation, if the Bears had a dome they could keep open, and Chicago got the Super Bowl, Final 4, and other events? Who would have been hurt by that?

i'm not sure if getting the superbowl once every 3 decades would have made it worthwhile to build a stadium with a retractable roof. retractable roof stadiums are generally not very attractive, unlike the renovated soldier field, which is one of the finest works of architecture of our young millennium, and one of the best buildings chicago has ever built.

so to answer your question edsg25, i don't think that city visionaries were short-sighted when they blessed our fair city with one of the most kick-ass stadium venues in all of professional sports.

One thing we would miss with a retractable dome is the skyline views from the stadium. The retractable domes are less open because the walls have to be higher for the roof, retractable or not. This would prevent fans sitting up higher from having views of the skyline and the lake. Not only that, but if we have a retractable dome, we probably can't have natural grass.

There is a big difference between a retractable dome and a pure outdoor stadium.

i'm not sure if getting the superbowl once every 3 decades would have made it worthwhile to build a stadium with a retractable roof. retractable roof stadiums are generally not very attractive, unlike the renovated soldier field, which is one of the finest works of architecture of our young millennium, and one of the best buildings chicago has ever built.

so to answer your question edsg25, i don't think that city visionaries were short-sighted when they blessed our fair city with one of the most kick-ass stadium venues in all of professional sports.

sharptent, i'm in total agreement with you about soldier field. i'm one of the few who loves its EXTERIOR as well as interior. and i do see your point about how fleeting a moment a few super bowls and final 4's are.

what is interesting is the contrast between Chicago's approach and what New York is currently going through with the Jets. There are major differences, of course. The Jets' proposal is tied to the city's 2012 Olympic bid. There is also an element of wanting to boost Javitis Center's position that is not an issue with the much larger McCormick Place. Also, the lure of drawing the Jets back to the city is different from the framework of Chicago, where the Bears never left town.

Still, it is intereting to see a completely different approach in New York compared to Chicago.

Old:
http://www.philipmalenfant.com/chi2072

New:
http://www.philipmalenfant.com/chi2007

is the parking to the left of the second picture? seems like a far walk to the stadium after the tailgate party. but its definetly much better then the old picture.

can you find a picture that has is exactly like the old one but the new stadium?