http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Chicago_Bears_logo.svg/150px-Chicago_Bears_logo.svg.png
Chicago Bears

9x Champion:
1921, 1932, 1933, 1940, 1941,
1943, 1946, 1963, 1985



Home of the NFL's Chicago Bears

Can you fit a new modern stadium inside of an old one? One complete with hundred of luxury suites, club seating and put fans close to the action? Yes. There are bigger stadiums out there, with fancy awnings, retractable roofs, etc. They all try to be the most modern, yet most are big repeats of the same thing. Then you have Soldier Field, that shows there is innovation in design.

Pre-renovation Soldier Field
http://img30.exs.cx/img30/9079/5445605WVSpXrNnFt_fs.jpg
http://img30.exs.cx/img30/5336/be22.jpg

New Soldier Field
http://www.newspagedesigner.com/users/111/SoldierField.jpg
http://img30.exs.cx/img30/3299/P1010500.jpg
http://img30.exs.cx/img30/2928/grhc2004_aerial-2003-11b.jpg
http://img30.exs.cx/img30/3319/270632906hNkCkG_ph.jpg
http://five24.net/images/uploads/soldierfieldsunrise-1500.jpg

Atriums, concourses and walkways
http://www.webwaymonsters.com/fanpics/Hampton99/Hamptonfull/tn_New%20Soldier%20Field%20072.jpg
http://www.webwaymonsters.com/fanpics/Hampton99/Hamptonfull/tn_New%20Soldier%20Field%20010.jpg
http://www.webwaymonsters.com/fanpics/Hampton99/Hamptonfull/tn_New%20Soldier%20Field%20014.jpg
http://img30.exs.cx/img30/843/img_1778sized.jpg
http://img56.exs.cx/img56/7125/100401897azbwqrfs5mi.jpg

Gameday football
http://home.wi.rr.com/jvweb/bears3.jpg
http://img30.exs.cx/img30/9812/img_1783.jpg
http://img30.exs.cx/img30/9879/201730202lMhhQm_fs.jpg

Gameday football
http://img30.exs.cx/img30/3572/229659561AXXhVf_fs.jpg
http://img30.exs.cx/img30/5796/168214984MkWFJN_fs.jpg
http://img30.exs.cx/img30/7391/162121388jsqzwZ_fs.jpg
http://img30.exs.cx/img30/2262/168216640ZTkqJE_fs.jpg

ohhhhhhhh, I like Soldier Field

most people here in town seem to hate it, but i think it's brilliant!

what a magnificent sports facility to have right next to downtown on our beautiful lakefront.

quite an interesting blend with the modern glassy structure and the classical style

The best stadium in the US, imo. I love everything about it. It's huge, yet feels nice (from the pictures, I'd love to go there), combines old and new perfectly imo, has a sweet asymmetrical architecture, the use of materials is class, not the concrete look you see all the time, and the cantilevered scoreboards are just jawdropping.

10/10

The west grandstand lets it down if it stook with the style of the other side....I probably would of game it a 9!

No offense , but this is one of the ugliest stadiums I have EVER seen. It is one thing for a stadium to have some unique and non-symnetrical features but what the??? It's as if the designers had two different ideas for the stadium , and instead of combining those two ideas.......they built two different stadiums . The old one was sooo much better IMO.

First time I saw pics of it I wasnt that keen on it but I'v warmed to it over time, espeically how the old "greek" features are incorperated.

I like the asymmetrical structure too. And the combination of old and new is nice. 8/10

There are many more thing to this stadium than meets the eye. One won't be able to realize Soldier Field's value until they experience it from the inside. This stadium has the best sight lines, and is the most up to date stadium, in the NFL. Plus, there are no parking lots! Just lots and lots of trees and a gigantic sledding hill for the children. Underneath this stadium is a massive parking garage. Which makes the ability to respect the past and preserve it at the same time that much more impressive.

The addition to Soldier Field is a monument to architectural ineptitude. Just a few days ago, as I was exiting the Field Museum on my way to the parking structure, I was able to see closeup just how bad it looks. The extension of the seating--often said to resemble a flying saucer--and the old colonnade make for disastrous bedfellows. The U.S. government is considering the revocation of Soldier Field's status as a National Landmark as a result of its perversion.

Having said that, I agree with KingShizznit that the interior of the stadium is very attractive and innovative. The views of the field are impeccable and overall there is a feeling of coziness that many NFL stadiums are lacking.

my spin on Soldier Field (from an undeniably biased and partisan home-town guy and Bear fan):

nothing in the NFL can compare with the assemetrical layout of this dramatic beauty.

the exterior: people criticize the architecture of Soldier Field's exterior. What a joke; the vast majority of NFL stadiums don't even have architetcure; their shells for what is inside, little more.

to appreciate Soldier Field, you must understand one key concept: nobody would ever have designed a structgure like this from scratch. The design is an attempt to link the classical history of the stadium with a statment that looks to the future.

Others think it was a marriage made in hell. I see a tour de force instead. I love it. This is not an attempt to create a awkward connection between old and new by having the new design mimic the original statement, creating something that would have looked tacked on. It is the contrast between ol and new that make this thing work.

Sure you can't see the collonades from the field, but they're still there, not torn down by a totally new structure. And you can walk through them when you want, something impossible in the old configuration.

Even issues of "scale" are not what some people say (IMHO). The fear that this structure overpowers the lakefront is absurd when you consider that immediately south of Soldier Field, McCormick Place sprawls on the lakefront and Stevenson Expressway ramps over Lk Sh Dr. Meanwhile, directly to the west, Museum Park's new towering structures are practically at the stadium's doorstep.

This location isn't Lincoln Park, where beach and park width buffer the lakefront from the city. Soldier Field does not overpower the lakefront here the way that it would have been in a location such as the Lincoln Park lakefront, east of the zoo.

my spin on Soldier Field (from an undeniably biased and partisan home-town guy and Bear fan):

nothing in the NFL can compare with the assemetrical layout of this dramatic beauty.

the exterior: people criticize the architecture of Soldier Field's exterior. What a joke; the vast majority of NFL stadiums don't even have architetcure; their shells for what is inside, little more.

to appreciate Soldier Field, you must understand one key concept: nobody would ever have designed a structgure like this from scratch. The design is an attempt to link the classical history of the stadium with a statment that looks to the future.

Others think it was a marriage made in hell. I see a tour de force instead. I love it. This is not an attempt to create a awkward connection between old and new by having the new design mimic the original statement, creating something that would have looked tacked on. It is the contrast between ol and new that make this thing work.


I think Soldier Field is the one real chance taker inside and out in the entire world. The NFL is a leader at this for bowl layouts, while New Arizona Cardinals, Quoduoung(sp?) and Allainz are the others that take chances on the exterior. Soldier combines both, while creating a super intimate atmosphere without even a roof or straight sideline seating on the side(thank goodness the NFL knows better). Inside and out, if I were choosing a world #1, this would be it. Even over Reliant. I had a great aerial from the north that really showed off the genious of the bowl design and how a lot of the bowl is in the ground on that side. As highly as it is ranked in people's mind, I think it is still vastly underrated because it doesn't have a roof or retractable roof.

According to a recent reply e-mail I received from Soldier Field Management, the capacity is 63,000 and the record crowd for the new stadium was set on opening day 2003 when 61,500 showed up to watch Chicago take on Green Bay.

Super cool - 9/10

I am not sure about the exterior, but the interior looks pretty nifty (despite some unecessary non-symmetrical features).

Very cool- I like how they kept the old part and built on a modern part. They should do this with the LA Colliseum.

i like it! is it meant to have an Olympian Feel? Something from Ancient greek times?

As a season ticket holder to both old and new solider field. From a game standpoint the new stadium is amazing. I loved the old solider field ... it looked like a sea of people in a roman classical bowl. But the new stadium is far better game experience. Better bathroom... concessions...sight lines...and that place really gets roaring on third down ...

Is it meant to have an Olympian Feel? Something from Ancient greek times?

Yes, the doric columns and granite-textured cast stone were meant to give it an ancient Greek and Roman feel.

It really gives you a sense of how large the original Soldier Field was, that architects literally were able to build a brand new stadium inside the walls of the old stands! :)

I actually LOVE both the renovations of Soldier Field and Lambeau Field in Green Bay. With Lambeau, the interior bowl of the stadium was the only part worth preserving, while the exterior was the only part worth saving at Soldier.

The city of Chicago did a magnificent job with this stadium, including its surroundings. Before the renovation the stadium was surrounded by a barren parking lot. Now they've got an underground garage, and the lot's been replaced by park. Re-routing Lakeshore Dr. so it doesn't encircle the stadium was a great move too.

Bravo Chicago! :cheers:

fuck this stadium is awesome !!!! best in the us.

Soldier Field loses landmark status
By Noreen S. Ahmed-Ullah
Tribune staff reporter
Published April 22, 2006


Soldier Field's controversial renovation, which critics dubbed a "flying saucer" and "a fish bowl," has stripped the stadium of its national historic landmark designation.

The National Park Service said Friday that former Interior Secretary Gale Norton had signed the order removing the stadium from the list of historic landmarks. The order followed an advisory board's finding that the glass bowl-shaped stadium set inside the colonnades of the old Soldier Field had destroyed the stadium's historic character.

"For national landmarks, we look more for restoration," said David Barna, spokesman for the National Park Service. "This one crossed the line in terms of too much renovation."

The city has maintained that the $660 million Soldier Field makeover, promoted by Mayor Richard Daley, added modern amenities without hurting the stadium's classic architecture. Officials argued that the stadium received its designation in 1987 not only because of its architecture, but also because of its historic significance in major 20th Century events.

But many historic preservationists said the loss of the building's original architectural style merited removal of the historic designation.

"The `Independence Day' flying saucer that dropped on top of Soldier Field" destroyed the building's historic architecture, said David Bahlman, president of the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois.

Loss of the designation will make city officials across the nation think twice before major renovations of landmark sites, he said.

Officials at the Chicago Park District, which owns Soldier Field, were disappointed by the news. Parks spokeswoman Jessica Maxey-Faulkner said 90 percent of the stadium's architectural design was preserved.

Ben Wood, one of the lead architects on the renovation that was completed in 2003, blamed the media, especially Tribune architecture critic Blair Kamin, saying a barrage of unfavorable commentary influenced the federal decision.


and some incredible new shots

http://arthill.smugmug.com/photos/27698430-L.jpg
http://arthill.smugmug.com/photos/27697374-L.jpg
http://www.studioghibli.net/travel/nocon_2005/graphics/NoCon_2005_23.jpg
http://www.growingchicago.com/images/mypicsII/chi2007.JPG

I'm interested, how did the renovation take place? And by that I really mean, where did the Bears play when Soldier Field was being torn up and rebuilt (since the entire seatingbowl as well as pressboxes etc, were rebuilt). I'm assuming they weren't able to do this in one off-season, if so that would be very very impressive. What nearby venue had the capacity to facilitate the Bears?

I think it look great but dated pre-renovation.

Post-renovation......I'm genuinely undecided.

The Bears played at the University of Illinois furing the renovation.

Beautiful stadium :)

Its a nice looking stadium. The view from the luxary boxes must be good. It'd be nice to sit in one of them whilst drinking some beers. :cheers:

Prefered the old one myself.

awesome..love it..paul brown stadium is awesome too...

Its not a bad stadium, however there are much better NFL grounds in US.
I like the pic with the soccer field lines painted tho!
6.5/10

http://img462.imageshack.us/img462/6641/sfweb17ig.jpg
http://img462.imageshack.us/img462/9914/sfweb65on.jpg
http://img462.imageshack.us/img462/940/sfweb70oc.jpg
http://img462.imageshack.us/img462/2901/sfweb55wj.jpg http://img462.imageshack.us/img462/3472/sfweb36hs.jpg
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/7516/505633176e7499ec004da.jpg
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/5843/36017996912ec73bd86cw.jpg
A gift from our good friend Mussolini, a second century Roman column plundered from "Porta Marina of Ostica Antica"
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/1557/87507455b1665aa570b6ga.jpg
http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/9908/vt36bu.jpg

I'll would really doubt about the 90% architecture preservation claim, honestly althougt several aspects were saved, the stadium is really a new one, not one single seat has the same location,

about the new design I still cant decide if I like it or not, this stadium can loved or hated

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/113/295211863_e6ffae38b5_b.jpg
bigger one
http://www.flickr.com/photos/82486389@N00/295211863/sizes/o/

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1159/1035031769_af66472200_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2196/1593448503_126b2c4b91_b.jpg

Great nest for the bears! However the devil is in the details. The location is amazing and the overall design is impressive but some little things are not perfect ; l'm not a fan of the tainted windows nor the appearing steel. Still the sightlines look great! Bear fans must be happy!

It's good for football but poor foresight in that they then have to spend $390 million on a temporary stadium if Chicago hosts 2016. Why could they not have designed this to allow for a T&F-Olympic configuration -- thereby having to forgo a temporary one that'll rip up the grounds in Washington Park?

And to think, the Packers got their stadium renovations done for between 1/3 and 1/2 of the cost of what was spent on Soldier Field, done more tastefully and without missing a home game.

:runaway:

The first time that I drove by Soldier Field on Lake Shore Drive while the work was in progress a few years ago, it stuck me as taking that grand old edifice and dropping a huge funnel into it.

:ohno:

Mike

I hate this renovation. It seems so plasticy. It's small at 61,500, which is now the smallest stadium in the NFL. This makes no sense for such a large city with football tradition.

The old stadium held 68,000. This again affirms a bad trend of smaller stadiums with more expensive tickets.

Old Solider Field:

http://www.photography-plus.com/images/Chicago1/SoldierField.jpg

Awesome new shots sercan.de , thanks for those.


It's good for football but poor foresight in that they then have to spend $390 million on a temporary stadium if Chicago hosts 2016. Why could they not have designed this to allow for a T&F-Olympic configuration -- thereby having to forgo a temporary one that'll rip up the grounds in Washington Park?

Your right, it was very bad forsight. Even with the new stadiums new great attributes it would have better to build in near the McCormick Place, just south of the stadium, or in the South Loop perhaps and made it just as innovative only with a retractable dome that could perhaps be retrofited for an Olympic size oval (that would have been an expensive burdensome task though no doubt though).

Knocking down the south/north ends of the old stadium to make a park or smaller more intimate field with an awesome vista would have looked awesome as well.


Indiana Jones I hate this renovation. It seems so plasticy. It's small at 61,500, which is now the smallest stadium in the NFL. This makes no sense for such a large city with football tradition.

That is a good point and even though the it is good looking from the inside I agree it is too small. The outside is at best now what I could say is intreasting.

i really love this stadium
every stand is different
But +80k would have been better for Chicago and Bears.

Not knowing the old stadium, and being European I'm also not a great fan of open NFL stadiums, however this one is spectacular. I hope it forms part of any US World Cup bid, it really is a fascinating stadium.

And to think, the Packers got their stadium renovations done for between 1/3 and 1/2 of the cost of what was spent on Soldier Field, done more tastefully and without missing a home game.

:runaway:

The first time that I drove by Soldier Field on Lake Shore Drive while the work was in progress a few years ago, it stuck me as taking that grand old edifice and dropping a huge funnel into it.

:ohno:

Mike

Costs were higher because they completely rebuilt and reconfigured the entire surrounding parkland. The Soldier Field campus cannot be rivaled by any in the NFL. And I am NOT a Bears fan.

Not knowing the old stadium, and being European I'm also not a great fan of open NFL stadiums, however this one is spectacular. I hope it forms part of any US World Cup bid, it really is a fascinating stadium.
I suspect that there would have been a bit of a public revolt had they put a 'lid' on Soldier Field. Less-than-ideal weather conditions (rain, wind-driven sleet, snow, negative double digits C cold, etc) are very much a part of the game in the NFL and 'purists' LOVE seeing games where it is a factor - and Chicago is very well known for them!

This past season, one of the league's two semi-final games (NFC championship) was played in -20C weather in Green Bay, WI. The stadium was full (72K) and it drew MASSIVE nationwide TV ratings. The previous weekend, the quarter-final game at Green Bay was played in a heavy snowstorm - with a similar local and nationwide fan interest. (Green Bay is about 400km north of Chicago and the two teams have a bitter rivalry going back nearly 80 years.)

:cheers1:

Mike

IMO this stadium highlights European vs. American tastes. It seems Americans are more divided on Soldier Field while our European friends rank this as one of their favorite NFL stadiums along with Reliant.

And we're not even getting to the roof issue. :lol:

IMO this stadium highlights European vs. American tastes. It seems Americans are more divided on Soldier Field while our European friends rank this as one of their favorite NFL stadiums along with Reliant.

And we're not even getting to the roof issue. :lol:

And its funny because the stadium is as American as it gets...more focus on the interior, less on the exterior...while in Europe it seems to be the opposite

i prefer the inside
the inside is the stadium
do not understand why so many new ones have this special outside :ohno:

i prefer the inside
the inside is the stadium
do not understand why so many new ones have this special outside :ohno:

Do you mean the outside of stadiums in Europe as opposed to the insides?

general
many new stadiums have this special "Allianzisch" outside
but inside is often the same

For me the inside (stands etc) are mor important than the cladding / outside

general
many new stadiums have this special "Allianzisch" outside
but inside is often the same

For me the inside (stands etc) are mor important than the cladding / outside

I agree, but i guess thats the price you play for having a roof, it really narrows the creative options for the seating bowl IMO

true
Therefore i hope that our stadium will be better with a possible new 3rd tier in some years :D

true
Therefore i hope that our stadium will be better with a possible new 3rd tier in some years :D

well best of luck to you

Thanks
But i am also quite happy with the "current" one
Stands are close to the pitch and are paralel to it
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm23/turkisi/stadyum/seyrantepe_stadi01.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm23/turkisi/stadyum/2005696513911430400_rs.jpg

and quite steep stands
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm23/turkisi/stadyum/asp32.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/113/295211863_e6ffae38b5_b.jpg
bigger one
http://www.flickr.com/photos/82486389@N00/295211863/sizes/o/

The interior is extremely smart looking.No symmetry and yet it makes for a coherent looking stadium. Love the way the big upper tiers hang over the lower tiers.You have to hand it to the US for the way they instill a bit of visual flair into these designs.

On the downside, if this were my local football club stadium I wouldn't be happy with the design because it is too open for my preferred type of footy atmosphere but as an American Football venue it looks top drawer.

The interior is extremely smart looking.No symmetry and yet it makes for a coherent looking stadium. Love the way the big upper tiers hang over the lower tiers.You have to hand it to the US for the way they instill a bit of visual flair into these designs.

On the downside, if this were my local football club stadium I wouldn't be happy with the design because it is too open for my preferred type of footy atmosphere but as an American Football venue it looks top drawer.

You took the words right out of my mouth...

This is by far the most unique stadium in the world. I love it.

yes
i love the 3 tier main stand
but on the other site the eats stand with the big 2nd tier is also great
its like a mix of different stadiums

bernabeu = 3 tiers
san siro /azteca = 2 tiers and upper one is very big

dortmund 7 liverpool = 1 tier endzone

Does anyone have any pictures of Soldier Field from the USA vs. Honduras WC qualifier?

I like it.

It's great !!!!!!!

Regards.

Does anyone have any pictures of Soldier Field from the USA vs. Honduras WC qualifier?

I don't, but I wish. It looked great on television!:cheers:

bGK3qRYorGk

nBMRNMVY7mI

On the downside, if this were my local football club stadium I wouldn't be happy with the design because it is too open for my preferred type of footy atmosphere but as an American Football venue it looks top drawer.

Your preferred type of "footy"? What is that, some sort of game you play with your girlfriend under the table?

Your preferred type of "footy"? What is that, some sort of game you play with your girlfriend under the table?
Footy is a shortening of the word football. It is a term used for several sports otherwise known as football. Nothing to do with your girlfriend.Hope that helps.

Does anyone have any pictures of Soldier Field from the USA vs. Honduras WC qualifier?

ditto.

Some more photos


photos of "old" Soldier Field.

Soldier Field 1964
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r77/tootshibbard/Soldier%20Field/Soldier_Field_1964.jpg
via kalracing.com


circa 1927
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r77/tootshibbard/Soldier%20Field/dd03.jpg
via nationalcowboymuseum.org


http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r77/tootshibbard/Soldier%20Field/u-entertain.jpg
via www.museum.state.il.us/


http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r77/tootshibbard/Soldier%20Field/Soldier4.jpg
via ultimatebearsfan.com

1933
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r77/tootshibbard/Soldier%20Field/2630835013_6f5c784295_b.jpg
via Flickr - Marquette University Archives

1956 - Soldier Field ski jump
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r77/tootshibbard/Soldier%20Field/SOLDIERS_FIELD_SKIJUMP_lrg.jpg
via gilcoscaffolding.com

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3637/3615896555_b126547d45_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mss2400/3615896555/)
Soldiers' Field - Chicago (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mss2400/3615896555/) by Mark 2400 (http://www.flickr.com/people/mss2400/), on Flickr

October 10, 1988
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r77/tootshibbard/Soldier%20Field/753px-Soldier_Field_Chicago_aerial_.jpg
(Wikimedia)


http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r77/tootshibbard/Soldier%20Field/sample.jpg
via seatdata.com


Soldier Field, 1984
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r77/tootshibbard/Soldier%20Field/3260563144_5b9e1a4cae_b.jpg
Flickr - Mark 2400's


http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r77/tootshibbard/Soldier%20Field/95340231_7f0a4fbf38_o.jpg
Flickr - jbruntzel

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r77/tootshibbard/Soldier%20Field/823139554_fd48998ac3_o.jpg
(Flickr - mason.flickr's

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r77/tootshibbard/Soldier%20Field/2338588102_2a0d7dd706_b.jpg
Flickr - joseph a

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r77/tootshibbard/Soldier%20Field/2571068081_19d4682bba_b.jpg
Flickr - Ray Devlin

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r77/tootshibbard/Soldier%20Field/P1000369.jpg
photobucket - Jadeddreams87

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r77/tootshibbard/Soldier%20Field/CIMG0095.jpg
photobucket - summerdeforest

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r77/tootshibbard/Soldier%20Field/360949604_8e0634448e_o.jpg
Flickr - Cathy and Greg Rafanelli's

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r77/tootshibbard/Soldier%20Field/775176098_5f7db757df_b.jpg
Flickr - greg.walter9's

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r77/tootshibbard/Soldier%20Field/1415132555_8a07466747_b.jpg
Flickr - Fixie&Boxie's


Visting locker room
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r77/tootshibbard/Soldier%20Field/3b5c.jpg
photobucket - smoker68x

I love this stadium, i suppose the only slight down side is the capacity but the architects were working within the constraints of the previous footprint i assume? Its not a surprise that a stadium in Chicago really stands out from most other modern stadia in the US.

But it lost its historic building status after the renovation.

There are few stadiums I dislike more than this one. It ruined the design of old Soldier Field and as a result, lost its historical landmark status. It looks awful now, like a spaceship landed on top of the old stadium and it's far too small. There's no reason that the smallest stadium in a US hosted World Cup would be in the city of Chicago. This stadium is a mega-fail.

any pics from the WCQ between Honduras and USA ?

any pics from the WCQ between Honduras and USA ?

The US Soccer official site has a photo gallery:
http://ussoccer.com/sights/slideShow.jsp_887-0.html

http://images.ussoccer.com/Images/Gallery/887_332239_600_USMNTJT060609006.jpg

they could've gone for a more classy less contemporary exterior. It just looks stupid!!

I love this stadium, i suppose the only slight down side is the capacity but the architects were working within the constraints of the previous footprint i assume? Its not a surprise that a stadium in Chicago really stands out from most other modern stadia in the US.

I agree. I love this stadium, in fact, this is my favourite stadium in the US. Like you say, the only negative for me is also the capacity.

Its not a surprise that a stadium in Chicago really stands out from most other modern stadia in the US.

None of Chicago's stadiums are that interesting or groundbreaking in design. The United Center, bland. U.S. Cellular Field, mediocre. Wrigley Field, only famous because of how old it is.

http://img30.exs.cx/img30/2262/168216640ZTkqJE_fs.jpg

What the hell is going on with the score here? please don't say they split the game into quarters.... also, thats an amazing crowd for two foriegn teams, but then I suppose the same thing happens in the UK with the AF games at Wembley.

^^ It could be a game being decided on penalties.Just a guess.

I really love this stadium it's one of my favorites in the US certainly in my top 3. I appreciate the way they have made the interior non-symmetrical, and have incorporated both the original features of the stadium and added a 21st century design. Does anybody have any pictures of other designs that were put forward before they chose this design?

^^ It could be a game being decided on penalties.Just a guess.

Ah yes, I'm an idiot, that would make sense!

http://images.ussoccer.com/Images/Gallery/887_332239_600_USMNTJT060609006.jpg

very nice. C'mon u Yanks!

it is to compressed for my liking.

I remember the old Soldier field, I've been there and I miss it... Now it looks ridiculous, I mean it's a very strange and ugly mix of architectures.

Especially this stand :

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3650/3385094097_20bd34eccb.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3539/3385905850_e073d816af.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3641/3385094283_4550837fb6_o.jpg

The old one was just perfect regarding proportions, and it had a bigger seating capactity (74,000 to more than 100,000, depending on configuration)... But I think the new one looks so cool against both the skyline backdrop, and the lake... 9/10.

Preferred the old one tbh. Any stadium which reduces capacity is getting worse straight away in my book.

Preferred the old one tbh. Any stadium which reduces capacity is getting worse straight away in my book.

that's ridiculous. Stadium size reflects profit. Sometimes that means shrinking normal seat capacity to make room for luxury suites and club seating.

Obviously that's what they did!

Personally I don't agree with that but I can see why they did it - I didn't say 'reducing capacity is bad. fact.'

Obviously that's what they did!

Personally I don't agree with that but I can see why they did it - I didn't say 'reducing capacity is bad. fact.'
It wasn't a matter of capacity -- some of the sightlines were downright atrocious, especially in the end zones.

That may be the case, but neither are perfect. A recent addition to the 'poor stadium views' thread shows that.

It seems the more unique the design the greater the probability of some kind of sightline issues, whether they be major eg blocked vision of the field/pitch or minor eg blocked views of the rest of the stadium. On the other side of the coin if you want perfect views from everywhere stadiums tend to end up looking the same ie simple bowls like the 30k cookie cutters that are all over Europe.

Thanks for this site very helpful.

Had they built this stadium from scratch to look like this, I'd be saying it looks awesome. But seeing the old pictures of soldier field with its Lambeau/Rosebowl-esque classic style, I'm really scratching my head as to why they chose to renovate it in this way. Were they intentionally trying to avoid looking like lambeau because of the rivalry? Perhaps they could have ringed the more luxury boxes around the south end, and kept the roman comlumns theme of the other "guard towers"? Who knows. 9/10 for a new stadium, 5/10 for reverence for the former stadium, we'll say 7.5/10 average

I absolutely love this stadium. I shouldn't say this, since I live in Wisconsin and therefore SHOULD be a Packer fan, but this stadium is fantastic.

http://***************/ref.php?id=764

Had they built this stadium from scratch to look like this, I'd be saying it looks awesome. But seeing the old pictures of soldier field with its Lambeau/Rosebowl-esque classic style, I'm really scratching my head as to why they chose to renovate it in this way. Were they intentionally trying to avoid looking like lambeau because of the rivalry? Perhaps they could have ringed the more luxury boxes around the south end, and kept the roman comlumns theme of the other "guard towers"? Who knows. 9/10 for a new stadium, 5/10 for reverence for the former stadium, we'll say 7.5/10 average

It has been many years and as a Bears fan I am still largely conflicted about it as you are. Part of me wants to love what is right about it and part of me laments what is wrong about it.

http://***************/ref.php?id=764
http://www.dong.co.il/ref.php?id=161

Had they built this stadium from scratch to look like this, I'd be saying it looks awesome. But seeing the old pictures of soldier field with its Lambeau/Rosebowl-esque classic style, I'm really scratching my head as to why they chose to renovate it in this way. Were they intentionally trying to avoid looking like lambeau because of the rivalry? Perhaps they could have ringed the more luxury boxes around the south end, and kept the roman comlumns theme of the other "guard towers"? Who knows. 9/10 for a new stadium, 5/10 for reverence for the former stadium, we'll say 7.5/10 average

They did it like this to fit in between the confines of the original structure and to create better sightlines. You have to be at the stadium to appreciate it, there honestly is not a better seat in the house.
Although my preferred spot is in the "media deck". Basically, it's the seats below the large upper tier, they're cantilevered over it, you're protected from the elements and you have a perfect vantage point of the field.

The stands are steep and close to the field and they each have a distinct look. They're all actually seperate stands, nothing cookie cutter about it. I love it. I went to the old soldier field and it blew.

There are few stadiums I dislike more than this one. It ruined the design of old Soldier Field and as a result, lost its historical landmark status. It looks awful now, like a spaceship landed on top of the old stadium and it's far too small. There's no reason that the smallest stadium in a US hosted World Cup would be in the city of Chicago. This stadium is a mega-fail.

I personally love the stadium but it is funny about the capacity. It's not even big enough to be the prospective Olympic Stadium. They have to build another stadium for the Olympics and Soldier Field will be used sparingly, mostly for soccer.

I personally love the stadium but it is funny about the capacity. It's not even big enough to be the prospective Olympic Stadium. They have to build another stadium for the Olympics and Soldier Field will be used sparingly, mostly for soccer.

Its built what its used for. Its not a "national" stadium, but an NFL franchise stadium and is built for maximum revenue within its market.

There are few stadiums I dislike more than this one. It ruined the design of old Soldier Field and as a result, lost its historical landmark status. It looks awful now, like a spaceship landed on top of the old stadium and it's far too small. There's no reason that the smallest stadium in a US hosted World Cup would be in the city of Chicago. This stadium is a mega-fail.

Would you have preferred they demolished it?

The pre-renovation had crappy sight-lines and the rest of the infrastructure was a dump. It was also just another cookie cutter greco-roman style stadium, hardly unique. People get blinded by nolstagia, sure it looked "classier" from the outside. But as an actual spectator, it sucked. It was a relic, a dump, and etc.

As for capacity, while it maybe the smallest stadium in a US bid, it's still large by World Cup standards (and global standards). South Africa has several stadiums with lower capacity and I think even proposed England bids would have a couple venues with less than 63k capacity.

It was renovated specifically for Football (all codes) and excels as one. Nothing more, nothing less.

I think even proposed England bids would have a couple venues with less than 63k capacity.

The majority unfortunately.

The place before te renovations was a dump. I like it now, I just wish it wasn't so small.

The Olympics would be a gimmee if SF was large enough to host.

^^ I never thought it was a "dump" like some seemed to and I went there dozens of times over the years. It had to have some more modern amentities for revenue purposes but I never felt especially deprived.

Would you have preferred they demolished it?

The pre-renovation had crappy sight-lines and the rest of the infrastructure was a dump. It was also just another cookie cutter greco-roman style stadium, hardly unique. People get blinded by nolstagia, sure it looked "classier" from the outside. But as an actual spectator, it sucked. It was a relic, a dump, and etc.

As for capacity, while it maybe the smallest stadium in a US bid, it's still large by World Cup standards (and global standards). South Africa has several stadiums with lower capacity and I think even proposed England bids would have a couple venues with less than 63k capacity.

It was renovated specifically for Football (all codes) and excels as one. Nothing more, nothing less.

Having it torn down is not a forgone conclusion at all. For a decade and a half there were various locations the Bears and city talked about relocating the Bears. The idea that Solider Field necessitated the Bears in order to save it long term is pretty speculative.

In terms of the capacity issue all the other plans the Bears had included varying amounts of more seats and in fact they compromised in settling for less seats because Hallas/McCaskey had a hard on keeping the Bears along the lakefront.

Though there are aspects I like about the new Soldier Field in retrospect I wish they gone for a retractable stadium as part of the McCormick Complex or part of a UC or US Cellular sports complex.

I can understand why Chicago residents who had an historical affinity with the old building might be disappointed but to be honest, I absolutely love the stadium. I think the modern facade contrasts quite nicely with the remnants of the old Soldier Field. The interior looks top notch as well ... I certainly prefer that interior to, say, that of the new Cowboys Stadium. The only disappointment that I feel is about the capacity ... should have been atleast 80,000.

A wonderful looking stadium, but I did like the old stadium a great deal. Those luxury boxes really blemished it though.

I thought 'dump' because the majority of the bathrooms were port-o-potties. And the concessions were...well, not good.

The capacity seems to small for the 3rd largest city in the country.

I loved the old soldier field. She was a grand old lady and home to some unforgettable games but times move on and I for one think they did a great job of blending the old with the new. The fact they didn't flatten it full stop like so many old greats is a result. I can't wait to visit there next season.

9 out of 10 for me... it looses a mark for that capacity issue.

8 of 10

For me, its what inside the stadium that counts. This is the best seating bowl and most intimate stadium in the NFL, with lots of cantilevered seating. That the architects were able to fit this modern stadium inside the footprint of the old stadium is really amazing. And while the 61,500 seats is a little small, old Soldier Field only held 66,000, and one can see how much larger it was. Does anyone have any really old pictures of Soldier Field before its first renovation, when it had a running track and had 100,000+ seats, before the Bears moved in?

Check out http://www.stadiumdrawings.blogspot.com

^^There are a few photos on page four I posted.

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/printers-row/2009/11/liam-ford-soldier-field-a-stadium-and-its-c.html

11/06/2009
Soldier Field revealed

Five things Liam Ford was surprised to learn while researching his recent book, “Soldier Field: A Stadium and Its City ”:


1. While they were building Soldier Field, the South Park Commission had trouble deciding whether to allow professional football there. The South Parks controlled Chicago’s lakefront parks from Grant Park south, and wanted the new Grant Park Stadium to serve as a venue to showcase the athleticism of the children of the South Side. In the summer of 1925, the commissioners voted to study whether to allow professional teams to play there. Eventually, they decided it would be all right — and bring some money in to support park programs.

2. The original Soldier Field designs called for a giant monument at the south end of the stadium, where the stadium curves to resemble a Greek theater. The memorial would have stood just above Gate 0, where the sign with the stadium’s name is today. Because of cost, the South Park Commissioners decided to forgo the monument. Although the colonnades were designed to recall a great memorial of the past, the Mausoleum of Mausolus, it was only after the original designs were abandoned that South Park Commissioners began referring to the colonnades as the memorial structure at the stadium.

3. Building Soldier Field understandably became a massive undertaking. Much of the site for the stadium was still under water when the park commissioners voted to construct it south of the Field Museum. While it was being built, the New York Times noted that it was the largest building ever to make use of “concrete stone,” that is, concrete made to look like cut stone, with 130,000 cubic feet of the stuff.

4. The Bears regularly played at Soldier Field for years. But, until they moved there from Wrigley Field in 1971, they appeared at the stadium usually only for exhibition or charity games, such as an annual Armed Forces benefit game or the College All-Star Game. The Bears almost didn’t move to Soldier Field, which could have doomed the arena. George Halas had a contract to move his players to Northwestern University’s Dyche Stadium, but the Big Ten conference nixed the idea — and the Chicago Park District quickly offered Soldier Field.

5. For nearly 30 years, from the late 1930 through the 1960s, the most popular professional sport at Soldier Field wasn’t football: it was car racing. The first races were held in the mid-1930s, and for decades thousands of people came to Soldier Field almost every weekend from May through August to see midget stock-car races, demolition derbies and stunt racing. Racing ended at the stadium in the mid-1960s, depriving the Park District of a large revenue source — and probably setting the stage for the Bears’ move there.

..

pictures of car racing at Soldier Field?

9. Very good. Regards.

It looks like the people in the huge top tier opposite the luxury boxes can just tumble over onto the field. Pretty cramped.

The capacity seems to small for the 3rd largest city in the country.

Yet larger than the NFL stadium in the countries 2nd largest city.

lhG4YQbtpE8&feature=related

73o02JQV-Fc

_DUlyqkduM4

4tU-L2ZwDcM&NR=1

It looks like the people in the huge top tier opposite the luxury boxes can just tumble over onto the field. Pretty cramped.

That's the way a stadium SHOULD be. Fans right on top of the action.

Some more photos of Old Soldier Field from the Historic Chicago thread over at Skyscraperpage.com



1921........When it was at its best IMO. Would love to have the same set up today.
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/3231/1921soldierfield.jpg



1964
http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/7349/1964chicagosoldierfield.jpg

1932
http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/3295/grant20parkhistoric2.jpg


1982
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8021/grant20parkhistoric.jpg


1980s
http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/6651/371170719f7ecc76051.jpg


New Soldier Field
http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/8549/soldiersfld01.jpg

USA 2-2 Poland
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4145/5066406611_bba20b9467_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hinnosaar/5066406611/

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4111/5066404287_9df9965cb7_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hinnosaar/5066404287/

I thought there would be a bigger crowd for this game.

The capacity seems to small for the 3rd largest city in the country.

Yeah, that was a stupid decision. Chicago should easily be in the top five of most valuable teams but just break the top ten according to Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/30/football-values-09_NFL-Team-Valuations_Value.html). That and Chicago screwed themselves for being considered for a World Cup stadium. It may not totally have been about capacity but it certainly didn't help.

Yeah, that was a stupid decision. Chicago should easily be in the top five of most valuable teams but just break the top ten according to Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/30/football-values-09_NFL-Team-Valuations_Value.html). That and Chicago screwed themselves for being considered for a World Cup stadium. It may not totally have been about capacity but it certainly didn't help.
They didn't want to pay the necessary fees.

Speaking to the capacity, fitting that much premium seating and a good sized press box within the old shell laterally presented some challenges. Granted the grandstand overhangs one of the colonnades and one end is substantially deeper than the other but unless they wanted to further extend the endzones (which are already fairly deep and the worst viewing position) there weren't many other options without destroying more of the old shell.

Back in the early 90's there was a proposal to rehab Soldier Field and actually make the field run from E-W instead of N-S. This would have put end zones fit under the colonnades and the large grandstands to be on the north-south ends of the stadium. Would have been a real interesting concept for the end zones to face the colonnades.

I'm not sure what type of prohibitions the NFL has against E-W field directions though in order to avoid sun blinding.

Back in the early 90's there was a proposal to rehab Soldier Field and actually make the field run from E-W instead of N-S. This would have put end zones fit under the colonnades and the large grandstands to be on the north-south ends of the stadium. Would have been a real interesting concept for the end zones to face the colonnades.

I'm not sure what type of prohibitions the NFL has against E-W field directions though in order to avoid sun blinding.

That would have been...interesting.

definitely a 10. a true blend of old/new..

Wow, this stadium looks weird.

1988
http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/7246/1988octobersoldierfield.jpg


1964
http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/7349/1964chicagosoldierfield.jpg



1921
http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/3231/1921soldierfield.jpg

1988
http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/7246/1988octobersoldierfield.jpg


1964
http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/7349/1964chicagosoldierfield.jpg



1921
http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/3231/1921soldierfield.jpg

I feel like they could've executed the renovation of this place MUCH better. Kept the same seating configuration and incorporated the greek columns into the new design. Now the columns are not even that visible. The exterior looks horrid and out of place. Bad bad way to do it. If I'm right, Chicago remove this venue as an historical landmark after the changes?

I feel like they could've executed the renovation of this place MUCH better. Kept the same seating configuration and incorporated the greek columns into the new design. Now the columns are not even that visible. The exterior looks horrid and out of place. Bad bad way to do it. If I'm right, Chicago remove this venue as an historical landmark after the changes?
Yes they removed it because they said that the glass bowl set inside the colonnades of old soldier field ruined it's historic character. :no:

this only bring me one memory the world cup 94 Gemany against Bolivia first match of that game and how awfully missed that kick Dianna Ross! and that john mellencamp theme!

9/10 :)

I never liked those cut-out stands,with most of the stadiums in the US have.I'd give it 6.5.

8/10

Nice Chicago weather for the football game Dec. 12

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5088/5272885203_c53a32ef7b_b_d.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hawkmano/

http://img462.imageshack.us/img462/2901/sfweb55wj.jpg

Is it me, or does it look from this picture that the seats along the left edge here cannot see the south end zone?

Is it me, or does it look from this picture that the seats along the left edge here cannot see the south end zone?

it looks like it, but it might just be the camera lens? Either way, I wouldn't want to sit in those seats. With those suites overhead and in front of you, I'd feel so detached from the action

I believe you can see the entire field of play from those seats, there may be some issues with the corner flag in soccer as the field is wider though. Definitely the most detached seating without a column in the league though.

110.0 :cheers:


(no missprint -- i mean 110.0)

Chicago Fire 1-3 Manchester U.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6022/5976822928_89688057df_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eytonz/5976822928/

I am hoping to see Da Bears play at Wembley later in the year :horse:

Chicago Fire 1-3 Manchester U.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6022/5976822928_89688057df_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eytonz/5976822928/

Glad to see everyone was dressed in red to support their local Fire club.

Fan cheer during the national anthem as a giant United States flag is held over Soldier Field on the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks before an NFL football game between the Chicago Bears and the Atlanta Falcons in Chicago, Sunday, Sept. 11, 2011. (AP Photo/Kiichiro Sato)

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r77/tootshibbard/GIRLS/Lacey%20Chabert%20-%20MAXIM/SoldierFieldonthe10thanniversaryoftheSept11attacksChicagoBearsandtheAtlantaFalconsinChicagoSundaySept112011.jpg


http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r77/tootshibbard/Baseballe%20Parks/4d37afe773ef7914f80e6a706700e81c.jpg


http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r77/tootshibbard/Baseballe%20Parks/9d6cf4ea74027914f80e6a7067005808.jpg

September 11, 2011


hIO9DLe_-rY&feature=player_embedded




F2lBxHMMN0Y&feature=related

^^

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-field-0203-20120203,0,7305450.story

A Chicago Super Bowl! Oh ... wait ... sorry ...
Yet another example of how the Soldier Field fiasco cheated Chicagoans

February 3, 2012

The 10-day festival known as "sports' biggest party" thus far has been a rollicking success. Visitors bearing great wads of cash have boosted the local economy. Locals, too, have flocked into the downtown "Super Bowl Village" for 800-foot zip line rides — and for what looks like the world's greatest concentration of music events. Oh, and there'll also be an any-weather football game at a state-of-the-art stadium topped by a retractable roof.

Yes, we envy all the fun and profit now enjoyed by our neighbors in Indianapolis, which has a metro-area population of 1.75 million.

And we'd love to boast about the past and future Super Bowls right here in Chicago, which has a metro-area population of 9.46 million. You want a party? Chicago could throw a party.

If, that is, Chicago wasn't stuck with the shrimpiest stadium (capacity: 61,500) in the National Football League, a relentlessly open-air facility that, barring some NFL change of heart, is unfit for a February Super Bowl. Or an NCAA Final Four explosion of March Madness. Or huge indoor concerts between autumn and spring. Or, dare we raise a sore subject, weatherproof opening and closing ceremonies for some future Chicago Olympiad.

No, Chicago can't begin to compete with Indianapolis or other U.S. cities for these lavish and lucrative events. Why not? Because, a decade ago, Mayor Richard M. Daley and the private company that owns the Chicago Bears insisted on building the wrong stadium in the wrong place — with enormous help from taxpayers who were forbidden any chance to vote on their forced participation.

Now those taxpayers are stuck with a lakefront eyesore we've likened to a massive Ty-D-Bol clumsily jammed into a supposedly sacrosanct war monument to deceased American servicemen and women. When this retrofitted monstrosity opened in 2003, Tribune columnist Steve Chapman labeled it "the most jarring union of youth and age since Anna Nicole Smith married an 89-year-old billionaire."

What a lousy deal this Soldier Field fiasco was for Chicago. We wrote Dec. 9 about how the project's cost eventually swelled to about $660 million, the public debt burden to some $432 million. Backloaded principal and interest payments are leaping from $6.3 million in 2002 to $88.5 million in 2032. To make the financing work, revenues from a 2 percent hotel tax have to grow by 5.615 percent every year, for 30 years.

Are you surprised that revenues are falling short of that foolishly ambitious growth rate?

Are you surprised that, for the next two decades, Chicago taxpayers are stuck paying any and all shortfalls — something Daley flat-out guaranteed would not happen?

This was a colossal screw-up that didn't need to be. There was chatter about an indoor Chicago stadium even before Walter Payton first wore a Bears uniform in 1975. During the 1990s, politicians and civic leaders talked to death proposals for "McDome," a 75,000-seat, multi-use arena — sports, entertainment, exhibitions, conventions — to accompany a McCormick Place addition. Didn't happen.

In 2001, the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois — eager to pre-empt the desecration of Soldier Field — pushed a clever and much less expensive plan for an 80,000-seat domed stadium on 23 acres of public land across 35th Street from what's now U.S. Cellular Field. A survey by Market Shares Corp. found that citizens favored that location by a 2-1 ratio — and favored a facility with a retractable roof by a 5-1 ratio.

Daley, though, was in Full Stubborn — think Chicago Children's Museum to Grant Park. And the company that owns the Bears had a fervent but unarticulated phobia of proposed locations on the South or West sides. As the 35th Street proposal began to gain traction in public discourse, mouthpieces for the Bears owners and City Hall assured us that thorough "studies" had ruled out that site. We repeatedly asked to see those "studies." We're still waiting.

So Daley and the Bears owners got their way, taxpayers got shafted and Chicago got eliminated from competition for Super Bowls. Of the 45 games played thus far, three have been in Snowbelt stadiums, all with roofs: Pontiac, Mich., in 1982, Minneapolis in 1992 and Detroit in 2006. The 2014 game will be played in a new New York-area outdoor stadium; nervous NFL officials have hinted that that's a one-time exception to their First Commandment: Thou shalt not risk a winter-ravaged Super Bowl.

So who knows? Maybe the NFL someday will decide it wants many more Super Bowls played in cold outdoor climes.

Maybe, that is, this city someday will qualify for the mega-event Indianapolis is happily hosting now.

Or maybe Chicago's best hope is that bond payments conclude as scheduled in 2032 — after which wrecking balls can demolish Soldier Field's grotesque and impractical Ty-D-Bol.
..
2001 - Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois 80k seat stadium plan
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r77/tootshibbard/2016%20olympics/2001-LandmarksPreservationCouncilofIllinois80kseatstadiumplan.jpg

Do like Soldier Field but its to small for a city like Chicago tho. But that design does look aweful abovel tho.

A Super Bowl in Chicago would be good for the city

From a practical standpoint, yeah, it can be criticised. But from an architectural and aesthetic standpoint? I think it's fantastic. He calls it an eyesore, but I think that's very harsh.

i think its one of the best looking NFL stadiums..its got character..but yes,its too small,possibly in the wrong place and perhaps a roof would have been a good idea..i would just ask a question,all those years of the old S.F.was not having a roof and not hosting the Super Bowl ever an issue then?

Football was meant to be played outdoors. Yes it means Chicago won't get super bowls, as for only 61,500 seats, that is a little small and it does seem odd for that small.

I did like that there's armrests and cup holders instead of just regular bleachers like Lambeau Field.

Very beautifulhttp://www.collegefun4u.com/track.php?u=4

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3214/2294761745_a4385c39e7_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/idiart/2294761745/)
Chicago's Soldier Field (http://www.flickr.com/photos/idiart/2294761745/) by idiart (http://www.flickr.com/people/idiart/), on Flickr

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5064/5875042808_b1117728fa_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/julierubes/5875042808/)
Soldier Field (http://www.flickr.com/photos/julierubes/5875042808/) by Julie Rubes (http://www.flickr.com/people/julierubes/), on Flickr

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2697/4105043797_68b3ec45c2_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mss2400/4105043797/)
Soldier Field - Chicago (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mss2400/4105043797/) by Mark 2400 (http://www.flickr.com/people/mss2400/), on Flickr

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4057/4671848498_935a230cfe_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/caperry123/4671848498/)
soldier field (http://www.flickr.com/photos/caperry123/4671848498/) by caperry123 (http://www.flickr.com/people/caperry123/), on Flickr

http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1182/5155200354_3761cc81d1_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/10847222@N06/5155200354/)
Spaceship on Soldier Field (http://www.flickr.com/photos/10847222@N06/5155200354/) by whisky21178 (http://www.flickr.com/people/10847222@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/115/260024829_08a2671262_z.jpg?zz=1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/docpeterson/260024829/)
Soldier Field (http://www.flickr.com/photos/docpeterson/260024829/) by flesh mcfiesty (http://www.flickr.com/people/docpeterson/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7160/6535363099_e75fe979b6_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pinkpanther6689/6535363099/)
soldier field pan 4 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pinkpanther6689/6535363099/) by Pinkpanther6689 (http://www.flickr.com/people/pinkpanther6689/), on Flickr

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3514/3980886025_61d67b7e98_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mcfc2112/3980886025/)
Soldier Field Stitch 2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mcfc2112/3980886025/) by mcfc2112 (http://www.flickr.com/people/mcfc2112/), on Flickr

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2669/3801638101_da21dfd1fd_z.jpg?zz=1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatalysis/3801638101/)
Soldier Field (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatalysis/3801638101/) by fatalysis (http://www.flickr.com/people/fatalysis/), on Flickr

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3509/3802453360_6bc30d37dd_z.jpg?zz=1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatalysis/3802453360/)
Soldier Field (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatalysis/3802453360/) by fatalysis (http://www.flickr.com/people/fatalysis/), on Flickr

http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1238/5132719625_2579d2004d_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/joeycrizzle19/5132719625/)
Soldier Field fisheye (http://www.flickr.com/photos/joeycrizzle19/5132719625/) by J_Ramirez19 (http://www.flickr.com/people/joeycrizzle19/), on Flickr

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4114/4927877919_3ebb63472e_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/matthewgardner/4927877919/)
Inside Soldier Field (http://www.flickr.com/photos/matthewgardner/4927877919/) by Matt D Gardner (http://www.flickr.com/people/matthewgardner/), on Flickr

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3098/3347771713_ddda288788.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/southsideandy/3347771713/)
oldphotos29 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/southsideandy/3347771713/) by southsideandy (http://www.flickr.com/people/southsideandy/), on Flickr

If NFL is willing to give NYC a SB despite no roof they should also do it for Chicago.

If NFL is willing to give NYC a SB despite no roof they should also do it for Chicago.
They are waiting to see if the game in New Jersey will be a disaster or not (I'm betting that it will be). The waiting part is one of the few smart moves the NFL has made lately.

And Soldier Field is too small by 10,000 seats.

Solider Field looks very intimidating.

If NFL is willing to give NYC a SB despite no roof they should also do it for Chicago.

The right to host is not just "given" away.

Chicago must BID for it. While Chicago fits the other categories outside of stadium capacity to host, when the stadium gets a Super Bowl, the NFL takes control of your facility and can make changes to the decor of suites and even club levels.

United Center could easily host the NBA All-Star Game, but ownership does not want to bid for that same reason and that their season ticket holders do not get a large enough share of tickets.

Very unlikely to happen but........

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-emanuel-makes-pitch-for-super-bowl-at-soldier-field-20120531,0,4062206.story

Emanuel makes pitch for Super Bowl at Soldier Field

By John Byrne

Tribune reporter

May 31, 2012

Mayor Rahm Emanuel put the arm on NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell today, making a case for a Super Bowl to be held at Soldier Field.

Don’t start making plans to buy tickets yet, however. Chicago's lakefront is often arctic in February, and the stadium might not be big enough to host a Super Bowl.

Goodell was on hand to applaud the Bears and the Chicago Park District for making Soldier Field the first NFL stadium to receive LEED certification for its environmentally sustainable attributes.

But Emanuel said he had the Super Bowl on his mind when the two met privately before the news conference. "I found out a secret, and that is the commissioner's in-laws live in the area, and I'm holding them hostage until that happens," Emanuel said.........

Goodell also acknowledged Soldier Field's relatively small capacity could be an issue.

But with increased seating and changes in code allowing for more people in its suites, the stadium's capacity has grown since its 2001-2003 renovation from 61,500 to about 63,500.

The home of the Indianapolis Colts, Lucas Oil Stadium, has a usual capacity of about 63,000 for football games, which would make it the smallest capacity stadium behind Soldier Field, but that was increased to about 68,000 for this year’s Super Bowl, according to the NFL. Lucas Oil Stadium also has a retractable roof, however.

Also important, Goodell said, is the need to be able to host the many people who come into the city just to be a part of the event without attending the game.............

The right to host is not just "given" away.

Chicago must BID for it. While Chicago fits the other categories outside of stadium capacity to host, when the stadium gets a Super Bowl, the NFL takes control of your facility and can make changes to the decor of suites and even club levels.

United Center could easily host the NBA All-Star Game, but ownership does not want to bid for that same reason and that their season ticket holders do not get a large enough share of tickets.
Well that goes without saying. If Chicago makes a bid for it which they should, NFL should not just dismiss them because Soldiers Field has no roof.

The capacity thing is pretty irrelevant I think. The NFL knows this.

I think Soldier field is my favourite NFL stadium. Sure it's perhaps not as big as it could be but I really like the whole rebuilding within the original footprint, the use of grass is another thing, and the location in such a great part of Chicago.

P.S. I'm a Colts fan.

Video of Mexico - Bosnia from the stands played on the 31st last month. Attendance 51,240. Chicago seems kinda windy...

http://youtu.be/DvP9rECVIe0

9/10

I appreciate the boldness of the design and love how close the seats are to the field, but it feels like the architect didn't quite know how to 'resolve' the corners with the varying heights of the upper deck. It appears very sloppy and almost unfinished in the corners. Something with a more sleek finish would have really been the icing on the cake for me, which would have made it one of my favorite stadiums.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/ct-spt-0616-mitchell--20120616,0,2107439.column

Did Chicago botch Super Bowl chances with McDome fiasco?
1 critic blames politicians for scuttling plans for large multi-use stadium

Fred Mitchell

June 15, 2012

........Marc Ganis, president of the Chicago-based consulting firm SportsCorp Ltd., tells me Chicago should have been host to multiple Super Bowls by now if the idea of a domed stadium hadn't been treated like a political football.

"Had Chicago and Illinois built the McDome (in 1996), the original domed stadium planned for next to McCormick Place, I suspect we would have had at least two Super Bowls already," Ganis said.

"It was extremely short-sighted; it was extremely narrow focus. … It would have cost (less than what it eventually) cost simply to upgrade Soldier Field. It would have been a terrific financial and tourism boost for the city."

The reported estimated cost was $500 million. The cost for renovating Soldier Field in 2002-03 was $680 million, according to Ganis, and the capacity was reduced to a league-low 61,500. A domed stadium also might have attracted NCAA Final Fours and other events of national significance.........

I asked Ganis, who has been involved in many projects, such as the new Yankee Stadium, about the feasibility of expanding Soldier Field to accommodate a Super Bowl.

"Very expensive, but with enough money, anything is do-able," he said. "The problem of increasing the capacity is that one of the strengths of Soldier Field is its intimacy. It's great for Bears fans who go to the games. But because of the compactness … the columns being where they are, the scoreboards in the two end zones, it leaves very little space for even temporary seating expansion.

"If New York goes very well, then I think the league will be open to looking at more (Northern) open-air Super Bowls. My guess is Washington (would be next) with a stadium that could be 100,000-plus seats, 300-plus suites..........
..




...

From Brian Koprowski on Flickr:

http://s16.postimage.org/eicoq2p1x/8136102827_7b2157ef14_h.jpg (http://postimage.org/)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chewbackski/8136102827/

Why don't they ever enclose American football stadiums and put a proper roof on them so they are a actual stadium rather than a bowl with uneven sides??

Why don't they ever enclose American football stadiums and put a proper roof on them so they are a actual stadium rather than a bowl with uneven sides??

Because we actually get Autumn sunshine here in America and like to bask in it.

http://img30.exs.cx/img30/9812/img_1783.jpg

The city of Chicago sure shaftet their population with this stadium :(

They should have built a cool covered stadium, like Cowboys Stadium.

Why don't they ever enclose American football stadiums and put a proper roof on them so they are a actual stadium rather than a bowl with uneven sides??

They should have built a cool covered stadium, like Cowboys Stadium.

Come on people, let's not go there...

Come on people, let's not go there...

Foreigners.... :ohno:

Why don't they ever enclose American football stadiums and put a proper roof on them so they are a actual stadium rather than a bowl with uneven sides??

because our weather isn't shit like england. (I say that because my girlfriend is currently at uni in England and constantly complains about the weather)

Foreigners.... :ohno:

Actually I'm from Britain! Not all of us think that everything needs a roof!

Actually I'm from Britain! Not all of us think that everything needs a roof!

Yeah, but my point still stands.

It never fails to get someone who's not from America to call for a roof when there's really no need for one on this board.

Why don't they ever enclose American football stadiums and put a proper roof on them so they are a actual stadium rather than a bowl with uneven sides??
OK, let's rehash the first day of Stadium Geography: (1) The United States is at roughly the same latitude as Spain and Portugal. (2) It rains a lot less here than it does in the UK. (3) We like being outside.

The quiz covering the first day's material is on Monday.

http://www.needstolaugh.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/oh-no...-not-this-shit-again.jpg

OK, let's rehash the first day of Stadium Geography: (1) The United States is at roughly the same latitude as Spain and Portugal. (2) It rains a lot less here than it does in the UK. (3) We like being outside.

The quiz covering the first day's material is on Monday.I think this should be an item on the forthcoming presidential itinerary! Sure, the economy and national defense come first, but somewhere near that top tier needs to be a polite but firm education provided to the rest of the world: The US does NOT require nor demand stadiums to have roofs!

'Merica!! :banana:

Why don't they ever enclose American football stadiums and put a proper roof on them so they are a actual stadium rather than a bowl with uneven sides??


Why don't I ever see a Brit with a decent tan? Oh yeah -- because the sun NEVER SHINES in Great Britain. Apples and oranges guys, apples and oranges.

Alright, I think that's enough "it needs a roof" bashing.

Back on topic....

Why don't they ever enclose American football stadiums and put a proper roof on them so they are a actual stadium rather than a bowl with uneven sides??

Not this shit AGAIN, why are Europeans so ignorant?

The city of Chicago sure shaftet their population with this stadium :(

They should have built a cool covered stadium, like Cowboys Stadium.

Another ignorant european, this is one of the coolest, most unique stadiums ever built, or will ever be built.

^^2 mins earlier 'I am he' was playing the troll on the Wembley thread so please don't let him provoke anyone into further off-topic discussion.

No roof needed, not here nor in the majority of American stadia - and that's coming from an ignorant European. Please let that be the end of it.


I have always wondered why the Bears opted for such small capacity instead of a brand new build, I assume they would not have a problem filling another 10,000+ seats? Surely they are losing out on a lot of gameday revenue?

As an European, I too think that this stadium is perfectly fine. Even more, it's great. Personally I have enough of stadia, that are basically the same, the only difference being the exterior. Not criticising any design, just thumbs up to being original.

It's definitely unique, and if you are lucky enough to get seats between the end lines, the view is wonderful. But there are ~20,000 seats way out in the boonies at either end for whom the view is terrible. And that makes it lose points in my book.

Its a gret stadium just wish it had more seats since Chicago is the 3rd largest city in the states. It does not need a r*** were always bringing this sh*t up just no need for it now also in England The Sun is a newspaper.

Its a gret stadium just wish it had more seats since Chicago is the 3rd largest city in the states. It does not need a r*** were always bringing this sh*t up just no need for it now also in England The Sun is a newspaper.

Funny how you mention it should have more seats. There was a time when it was one of the larger stadiums in the NFL.

Then they lost capacity in the renovation....

Funny how you mention it should have more seats. There was a time when it was one of the larger stadiums in the NFL.

Then they lost capacity in the renovation....

Yeah I remember watching on webcams the reno and seeing the team play in champagne (on telly) it was a great old school stadium layout.

^^2 mins earlier 'I am he' was playing the troll on the Wembley thread so please don't let him provoke anyone into further off-topic discussion.

No roof needed, not here nor in the majority of American stadia - and that's coming from an ignorant European. Please let that be the end of it.


I have always wondered why the Bears opted for such small capacity instead of a brand new build, I assume they would not have a problem filling another 10,000+ seats? Surely they are losing out on a lot of gameday revenue?

I of course don't mean ALL Europeans are ignorant, just half this forum :lol:

Gameday revenue is a pretty small percentage of NFL revenue anyway, especially standard seats which are shared, suite revenue is not shared. The reason NFL stadiums are getting smaller is so they can charge more for tickets, I would bet gameday revenue at the new Soldier Field is MUCH higher than the old one.

http://football.calsci.com/SalaryCap.html

I of course don't mean ALL Europeans are ignorant, just half this forum :lol:

Gameday revenue is a pretty small percentage of NFL revenue anyway, especially standard seats which are shared, suite revenue is not shared. The reason NFL stadiums are getting smaller is so they can charge more for tickets, I would bet gameday revenue at the new Soldier Field is MUCH higher than the old one.

http://football.calsci.com/SalaryCap.html

He is still right though to some extant. If I am not mistaken it is just the gate receipts that the Bears have to share (is it all or just a %, I forget). However they do get to keep the food and concession revenue which can be rather substantial.

He is still right though to some extant. If I am not mistaken it is just the gate receipts that the Bears have to share (is it all or just a %, I forget). However they do get to keep the food and concession revenue which can be rather substantial.

They share 40% of the gate receipts, but that does not include luxury suites and concessions

ok I made a similar comment about the roof in the Metlife Stadium thread and I was told off.... now I understand why.I can see it is a big issue between americans and europeans. I think if in the US it is common to have stadiums without roofs and the attendance is always very high I dont see any problem then. But concerning weather though I mean... I dont think it is a valid point.

ok I made a similar comment about the roof in the Metlife Stadium thread and I was told off.... now I understand why.I can see it is a big issue between americans and europeans. I think if in the US it is common to have stadiums without roofs and the attendance is always very high I dont see any problem then. But concerning weather though I mean... I dont think it is a valid point.

Stadiums should be functional before being pretty. No point on putting a roof on a stadium if it serves no purpose.

So yeah, the weather argument is very valid.

Dont bring me that "ignorant european" talk. It gets very windy and snowy in both Chicago and New York, thats why i cant understand why they dont put a roof on it. Ofcourse i can see why a roof have no use in the southern states but its 2012 now. You should be able to get some form of protection against the elements, especially when watching an american fotball game wich takes some hours.

I wouldnt consider to bring my kids to a snowy game in december or much rain in november with children under 10 years old.

Alsoy why i am bashing this stadium is because i reat the article linked earlier in this thread where Chicago had the option to build a bigger stadium with cover in order to get the Super bowl but now shot themselves in the foot by building this smaller and uncovered stadium.

Hell no.

We live by our own standards, not yours.

http://www.davesfootballblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/patriots-snow-celebration.jpg

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/232/518/f90a0a1effe9d59b3f97fb601dcbe336c7ee56d45cac9e05bf4650d1ec65cabe174d55b866852eb4327b7357e609760559ffd6bff4e574488f233c228cdf521a02fbf3b9ccdbeb0b917780_display_image.jpg?1274402034

http://login.wordpressors.com/Upload/nflfootball360.com/football%20snow1.jpg

http://rebeccagrant.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/nfl-snow-storm-blizzard.jpg


Tell me those aren't great. Plus, when you do have a roof this happens. :lol:

BI2mBiy1FGE

Dont bring me that "ignorant european" talk. It gets very windy and snowy in both Chicago and New York, thats why i cant understand why they dont put a roof on it. Ofcourse i can see why a roof have no use in the southern states but its 2012 now. You should be able to get some form of protection against the elements, especially when watching an american fotball game wich takes some hours.

I wouldnt consider to bring my kids to a snowy game in december or much rain in november with children under 10 years old.

Alsoy why i am bashing this stadium is because i reat the article linked earlier in this thread where Chicago had the option to build a bigger stadium with cover in order to get the Super bowl but now shot themselves in the foot by building this smaller and uncovered stadium.

Typical ignorant European counter argument, it's the same tired argument every time, just drop it already. This is an argument you cannot win.

Typical ignorant European counter argument, it's the same tired argument every time, just drop it already. This is an argument you cannot win.

What do you mean by Typical ignorant European ? Probably I'm misunderstanding the meaning because otherwise it would be kind of offensive , furthermore ignorant and Europeand dont match together.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/ct-spt-0616-mitchell--20120616,0,2107439.column This is the article i was refering too.

But what do i know? Chicago maybe dont want Super bowl and they like to get wet and freeze :lol:

Also i like to point out that no construction company in a country wich gets much snow would consider a membrane roof nowdays. It just cant handle the amount of snow we get here. Also with a heavier roof you can support heavy equipment during concerts etc.

We live by our own standards, not yours.



Nothing against stadiums without roofs, but your post just denied the argument, that it's the weather in the US that doesn't force you to build roofs. According to your post you love standing in bad waether ;)

Football (the American version) and baseball are meant to be played in the out of doors -- the elements are part of the game.

The best football games in the NFL were between the Bears, Packers, and Vikings back in the heyday of the Black and Blue Division. All of those teams played in open air stadiums (at least the Vikings did before the Metrodome) and the falling snow and bitter cold were essential aspects of the game. Back then, nobody complained about being in the snow or watching a game at 0 degrees F.

Baseball too.....it's an insipid, crappy experience to watch baseball under a covered roof. The wind, the rain, the heat or the cold are part of the game (for players and spectators alike).

Back to the topic....I really want to like this stadium. I really do, but the old Soldier Field was such as iconic, historic stadium, perhaps the most easily recognized NFL stadium in the country. I have no problems with modernist architecture, but this absolutely destroyed the beauty and historical quality of that stately old stadium. It looks like a Frankenstein monster -- Roman columns in front of a ribbon of glass and steel. They could have renovated while maintaining the essential character of the old Soldier Field.

Football (the American version) and baseball are meant to be played in the out of doors -- the elements are part of the game.

The best football games in the NFL were between the Bears, Packers, and Vikings back in the heyday of the Black and Blue Division. All of those teams played in open air stadiums (at least the Vikings did before the Metrodome) and the falling snow and bitter cold were essential aspects of the game. Back then, nobody complained about being in the snow or watching a game at 0 degrees F.

Baseball too.....it's an insipid, crappy experience to watch baseball under a covered roof. The wind, the rain, the heat or the cold are part of the game (for players and spectators alike).

Back to the topic....I really want to like this stadium. I really do, but the old Soldier Field was such as iconic, historic stadium, perhaps the most easily recognized NFL stadium in the country. I have no problems with modernist architecture, but this absolutely destroyed the beauty and historical quality of that stately old stadium. It looks like a Frankenstein monster -- Roman columns in front of a ribbon of glass and steel. They could have renovated while maintaining the essential character of the old Soldier Field.

You misunderstand me. I do NOT want every stadium to be a indoor or doomed stadium. I can also see that a game played in snow or heavy rain have its charm. My concern is that the spectators are not covered. The athletes get warm by playing while the spectator have to get cold and wet without any form of cover.

You misunderstand me. I do NOT want every stadium to be a indoor or doomed stadium. I can also see that a game played in snow or heavy rain have its charm. My concern is that the spectators are not covered. The athletes get warm by playing while the spectator have to get cold and wet without any form of cover.

... and none of them seem to care about the cold, wind, rain, or snow. They dress accordingly (well, the sane ones do).

Those that care about bad weather stay home and watch the game on TV.

Football (the American version) and baseball are meant to be played in the out of doors -- the elements are part of the game.

The best football games in the NFL were between the Bears, Packers, and Vikings back in the heyday of the Black and Blue Division. All of those teams played in open air stadiums (at least the Vikings did before the Metrodome) and the falling snow and bitter cold were essential aspects of the game. Back then, nobody complained about being in the snow or watching a game at 0 degrees F.

Baseball too.....it's an insipid, crappy experience to watch baseball under a covered roof. The wind, the rain, the heat or the cold are part of the game (for players and spectators alike).

Back to the topic....I really want to like this stadium. I really do, but the old Soldier Field was such as iconic, historic stadium, perhaps the most easily recognized NFL stadium in the country. I have no problems with modernist architecture, but this absolutely destroyed the beauty and historical quality of that stately old stadium. It looks like a Frankenstein monster -- Roman columns in front of a ribbon of glass and steel. They could have renovated while maintaining the essential character of the old Soldier Field.

:wtf:

Baseball games get stopped and/or cancelled because of a light drizzle. Let alone rain.

The whole roof/no roof discussion is just lame. Let everybody built the stadium they want. Plenty of great stadiums with roof and plenty without one... It would be a disgrace if Lambeau Field ever got a roof. But a new big stadium in Europe without a roof would look silly...

furthermore ignorant and Europeand dont match together.

Obviously they do, or we would not be having this conversation. You should probably learn the meaning of the word before questioning how it is used.

But even in sunny Spain and Portugal they built stadiums with roofs... So why not in USA?

//Ignorant European.

But even in sunny Spain and Portugal they built stadiums with roofs... So why not in USA?

//Ignorant European.

We have plenty of stadiums with roofs

//Non-Ignorant American

Nothing against stadiums without roofs, but your post just denied the argument, that it's the weather in the US that doesn't force you to build roofs. According to your post you love standing in bad waether ;)

According to my post we love standing in bad weather?

Yes, that is indeed what I said. What's the issue?

:picard: ..........

We have plenty of stadiums with roofs

//Non-Ignorant American
True. But in average, there are more stadiums without roofs in USA compared to Europe. Or am I wrong?

True. But in average, there are more stadiums without roofs in USA compared to Europe. Or am I wrong?

This is true, but rooofed stadiums are less important in our culture. Why? Dunno, don't care. I like both types, and don't make insulting posts about either type, but of course I'm not ignorant to other cultures and beliefs.

Take our best 20 roofed stadiums, ANY soccer league in Europe would KILL to have them.

//Arrogant but true American post.

Can we put a lid on this now please.

Can we put a lid on this now please.

Every time we put a lid on it, another idiot pops up, I'm sick of it!

Every time we put a lid on it, another idiot pops up, I'm sick of it!

Yes Think we all are. Maybe use a kilner jar has a lid. Notice it only happens every 6-7months from newbies tho

This is true, but rooofed stadiums are less important in our culture. Why? Dunno, don't care. I like both types, and don't make insulting posts about either type, but of course I'm not ignorant to other cultures and beliefs.

Take our best 20 roofed stadiums, ANY soccer league in Europe would KILL to have them.

//Arrogant but true American post.
Ok, I've made some research. :bowtie:

Ok, so there are mostly cultural reasons behind this as I understand it.The fans in the open stadiums will go no matter of the weather, because they're real fans...something like that. I kind of like that spirit actually. And since the fans will come no matter of the weather, there is no reason for the club to invest in a roof. Also these teams have an advantage when playing against the dome teams.

When it comes to the college stadiums, the lack of roofs seems to be more because of the higher cost that a roof will bring?

And in Europe, the fans are louder and singing more chants compared to the American fans. So in Europe we like to have roofs to help the atmosphere.

My source: http://forum.nfluk.com/showthread.php?t=84383

Comments on this? ;)

Every time we put a lid on it, another idiot pops up, I'm sick of it!

You are funny, somehow you think i hate all the stadiums in USA without a roof. First of all i must clarify my standing point. The reason why i ask why this particular stadium wasnt built with a roof and alot bigger is because its a gigantic city. I also guess that Chicago where aiming and still aims to get the super bowl.
If you read the article before you can see that they shot themselves in the foot by not build a bigger stadium with a roof, especially since the funds was there.

If there is no need for a roof then i wont complain, example of this is Lambeu field who have made it their thing to play in harsh weather. Also all the college stadiums and the stadiums in the southern parts of USA i think a roof would be totally not worth it.

BUT, this is about Soldiers field who is a new built stadium, in a big city with big goals. Instead they built some kind weird small stadium, trying to maintain the vibe of the old stadium.

Ok, I made some research. :bowtie:

Ok, so there are mostly cultural reasons behind this as I understand it.The fans in the open stadiums will go no matter of the weather, because they're real fans...something like that. I kind of like that spirit actually. And since the fans will come no matter of the weather, there is no reason for the club to invest in a roof. Also these teams have an advantage when playing against the dome teams.

When it comes to the college stadiums, the lacking of roofs seems to be more because of the higher cost that a roof will bring?

And in Europe, the fans are louder and singing more chants compared to the American fans. So in Europe we like to have roofs to help the atmosphere.

My source: http://forum.nfluk.com/showthread.php?t=84383

Comments on this? ;)

I also like the standing point the americans have, and note that i am not bashing every stadium in USA, i like many of them. My objection is that Chicago had funds to build a big stadium with a roof in order to get more revenue and probably get the Super bowl, once or twice. Instead they build this smaller stadium without a roof.

:wtf:

Baseball games get stopped and/or cancelled because of a light drizzle. Let alone rain.


This is false. I have sat through dozens of baseball games in drizzle all they way up to a steady rain. They only call them if it's really RAINING. like thunderstorms, or noreasters. Please don't post what you don't know.

You are funny, somehow you think i hate all the stadiums in USA without a roof. First of all i must clarify my standing point. The reason why i ask why this particular stadium wasnt built with a roof and alot bigger is because its a gigantic city. I also guess that Chicago where aiming and still aims to get the super bowl.
If you read the article before you can see that they shot themselves in the foot by not build a bigger stadium with a roof, especially since the funds was there.

If there is no need for a roof then i wont complain, example of this is Lambeu field who have made it their thing to play in harsh weather. Also all the college stadiums and the stadiums in the southern parts of USA i think a roof would be totally not worth it.

BUT, this is about Soldiers field who is a new built stadium, in a big city with big goals. Instead they built some kind weird small stadium, trying to maintain the vibe of the old stadium.



I also like the standing point the americans have, and note that i am not bashing every stadium in USA, i like many of them. My objection is that Chicago had funds to build a big stadium with a roof in order to get more revenue and probably get the Super bowl, once or twice. Instead they build this smaller stadium without a roof.

"The city of Chicago sure shaftet their population with this stadium

They should have built a cool covered stadium, like Cowboys Stadium. "

This is what you said. How can that be taken for anything but a troll post by an ignorant European? Now STFU and leave this thread.

A roof would ruin this masterpiece

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/The_Refurbished_Soldier_Field.jpg

"The city of Chicago sure shaftet their population with this stadium

They should have built a cool covered stadium, like Cowboys Stadium. "

This is what you said. How can that be taken for anything but a troll post by an ignorant European? Now STFU and leave this thread.

Wow, so hostile. Sure my first post in this thread was a bit clumbsy expressed but it was in reference to the article. Also i agree with you on the picture. The stadium is already built, it looks kinda cool and now it would be pointless to put a roof over it.

But i still think the city of Chicago should have chosen the option with a roof or just renovated the old stadium which was lovely.

Its a great looking stadium this is a fact.

Its a great looking stadium this is a fact.
Yes it is...

by American standards... :troll:

A roof would ruin this masterpiece



ಠ_ಠ

This is false. I have sat through dozens of baseball games in drizzle all they way up to a steady rain. They only call them if it's really RAINING. like thunderstorms, or noreasters. Please don't post what you don't know.

That's just not true...

Did I exaggerate a bit with the word drizzle? yes I did. But the guy was trying to convince people baseball was some kind of though game that is played whatever the circumstances. Like it was in any way comparable with Football. Yes, they'll play trough a drizzle, but MLB games are stopped as soon as a decent amount of water is falling down. To say they only stop with thunderstorms is a MUCH bigger exaggeration then I did with drizzle...

I might be "evil" in your eyes because I'm European, but I love watching American sports so don't try to tell me I know nothing about it. Don't point to the final innings of gm6 in the NLCS. That had to do with scoreboard+playoff rules... ;)

According to my post we love standing in bad weather?

Yes, that is indeed what I said. What's the issue?

If you read my post you'd know. :)

People are trying to prove, that there's no need for roofs due to a different climeta and less bad weather. You just denied the arguement. That's all.

If you read my post you'd know. :)

People are trying to prove, that there's no need for roofs due to a different climeta and less bad weather. You just denied the arguement. That's all.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

:picard: ..........

Just let 'em get it out of their system...