The Arlington Heights Analysis: What's Really Being Proposed

The Bears purchased the Arlington Park racetrack property in February 2023 for $197.2 million. The site has been framed as "our future home" — until Indiana entered the picture as a competing offer.

By Dear Kevin Warren · 2026-01-21

What the Arlington Heights proposal actually involves, what it would cost, and what Chicago would lose.

The site

Location

Address: 2200 W Euclid Avenue, Arlington Heights, IL Former use: Arlington Park racetrack (demolished 2023) Total acreage: 326 acres Bears' use plan: Stadium (~25-30 acres), mixed-use development (remaining)

Distance from Chicago

| From | Distance | Drive Time (non-game day) | |------|----------|---------------------------| | Chicago Loop | 26 miles | 40-60 minutes | | Soldier Field | 28 miles | 45-70 minutes | | O'Hare Airport | 8 miles | 15-20 minutes |

Transit access

Current transit options: - Metra UP-Northwest Line: Arlington Heights station (1.5 miles from site) - Pace bus: Limited service - No rapid transit (L) access

Proposed transit improvements: - Metra station improvements/expansion - Bus rapid transit from station to stadium - Total transit investment: Hundreds of millions (public cost)

What the Bears own

The Bears purchased the Arlington Park site outright. This is unusual in stadium deals — most teams seek land as part of public subsidy.

Implications:

1. Sunk cost — The McCaskeys have already invested $197M. Walking away loses that. 2. Real estate play — The remaining 290+ acres become development opportunities. 3. Leverage limitation — Owning the land means Indiana would require new land acquisition.

The development angle

Warren and the Bears have consistently described the project as more than a stadium:

> "This is not just a stadium project. It's a mixed-use development that will transform the region."

Translation: The Bears want to be real estate developers. The stadium is the anchor; the surrounding retail, residential, and commercial development is where additional profit lies.

Who benefits from development profits? The Bears. Not taxpayers.

The stadium proposal

Estimated costs

| Component | Estimated Cost | Who Pays | |-----------|---------------|----------| | Stadium construction | $2-2.5 billion | Bears (claimed) | | Site infrastructure | $400-500 million | Public (claimed) | | Regional infrastructure | $300-400 million | Public (claimed) | | Transit improvements | $100-200 million | Public/Metra | | Total | $3-3.5 billion | Split unclear |

These are estimated ranges. Actual costs and allocation remain opaque.

The "infrastructure" request

Warren claims the Bears aren't asking for "stadium money" — only "infrastructure investment."

Infrastructure items include: - Highway interchange modifications (I-90, IL-53) - Road widening and new roads - Water and sewer capacity - Electric grid upgrades - Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure - Transit station improvements - Parking structures

All of this infrastructure exists to serve the stadium and development. Without the stadium, these projects wouldn't be priorities.

Traffic and congestion

Current area traffic

The I-90/IL-53 interchange is already one of the busiest in the northwest suburbs. Adding 60,000+ visitors for games would require massive infrastructure investment.

Game day projections

| Factor | Estimate | |--------|----------| | Stadium capacity | 60,000-70,000 | | Average vehicle occupancy | 2.5 persons | | Vehicle trips per game | 24,000-28,000 | | Games per year | 10-12 (NFL + events) |

Infrastructure required

To handle this traffic, engineers estimate needs including: - New highway interchanges or ramps - Multiple new traffic signals - Road widening on surrounding arterials - Dedicated game-day traffic management

Who pays? Public infrastructure budgets — federal, state, county, and municipal.

What existing residents say

Local government position

Arlington Heights village leadership has generally supported the project, seeing development potential and tax revenue.

Resident concerns

Surveys and public meetings have revealed concerns:

1. Traffic — Existing congestion will worsen without massive investment 2. Character change — Suburban residential area becoming entertainment district 3. Property taxes — Unclear whether development will help or hurt residential tax burden 4. Public cost — Infrastructure funding will come from somewhere

Regional equity issues

The infrastructure investment being requested would divert funds from: - Chicago and Cook County transit needs - Underserved south and west suburban areas - State infrastructure projects elsewhere

Is a northwest suburban stadium the best use of limited infrastructure dollars?

Comparison to lakefront

| Factor | Soldier Field (Lakefront) | Arlington Heights | |--------|--------------------------|-------------------| | Transit access | CTA + Metra (imperfect) | Metra only (distant) | | Walkability | Connected to city | Car-dependent | | Chicago identity | Strong | Weak | | Infrastructure needs | Moderate (improving existing) | Massive (building new) | | Land cost to Bears | None (public land) | $197M (already paid) | | Development profits | Limited | Large (290+ acres) | | Environmental impact | Existing footprint | Greenfield development |

The real estate play

What the Bears get

Beyond the stadium, the Bears would control ~290 acres of development land. At suburban development densities, this could include:

- Retail space - Office buildings - Hotels - Residential (apartments/condos) - Entertainment venues - Restaurants

Estimated development value: Hundreds of millions to over $1 billion in long-term real estate value.

Who benefits?

| Party | Benefits | |-------|----------| | McCaskey family | Stadium revenue + real estate appreciation | | Bears organization | Naming rights, premium seating, game revenue | | Developers (Bears or partners) | Retail, commercial, residential profits | | Local Arlington Heights businesses | Some spillover | | Chicago businesses near Soldier Field | Lose game-day traffic | | Chicago taxpayers | No direct benefit; may fund infrastructure | | Illinois taxpayers | Fund infrastructure for private development |

The season ticket holder claim

Warren says "over 50% of season-ticket holders live within 25 miles of Arlington Heights."

Analysis

This claim is unverified, but even if true:

1. That's a selected radius. 25 miles from Arlington Heights is different from 25 miles from Soldier Field. 2. Season ticket holders aren't all fans. Many fans without season tickets live in Chicago proper. 3. Moving doesn't serve urban fans. Fans who take CTA to games would be excluded. 4. It ignores the future. Chicago's population trends urban; suburbs are aging.

What it really means

The Bears are saying: our most profitable customers (PSL holders, luxury box buyers) live in the suburbs.

This may be true. But it's an argument for maximizing revenue, not an argument for public subsidy.

The Kam Buckner challenge

Illinois State Representative Kam Buckner proposed a measure that would let the Bears borrow public infrastructure money at zero interest — if they could prove they delivered the economic impact they claimed.

If economic projections fell short, the Bears would owe interest.

The Bears' response: None. They avoided discussing the proposal entirely.

What this tells us: The Bears don't believe their own projections strongly enough to bet on them.

Environmental considerations

Greenfield development

Arlington Park was a racetrack, but redevelopment at stadium scale involves: - Massive stormwater management systems - Heat island effects from parking and roofing - Habitat disruption - Increased impervious surface area

Comparison to lakefront

Soldier Field already exists. Improving it doesn't require greenfield development.

Climate implications

A car-dependent stadium in the suburbs locks in decades of automobile travel. Public transit alternatives require massive investment that may never happen.

What would it take to make this work?

For the Arlington Heights project to deliver genuine public benefit, it would need:

1. Genuine private financing — Not infrastructure-labeled stadium costs 2. Revenue sharing — Public gets share of stadium AND development profits 3. Transit commitment — Real transit investment, not aspirational plans 4. Traffic mitigation — Fully funded, not pushed to future budgets 5. Community benefits agreement — Binding commitments to local hiring, affordable housing, public amenities

The current proposal doesn't include most of these elements.

Conclusions

1. This is a real estate deal disguised as a stadium project. The 290+ acres of development land are the prize.

2. "Infrastructure" means stadium subsidy. Everything being requested serves the stadium.

3. Chicago loses if this happens. Game-day spending, civic identity, and lakefront investment all suffer.

4. The Bears own the site and must use it. The $197M investment creates pressure to proceed.

5. Suburban location creates permanent car dependency. Transit solutions are aspirational, not funded.

6. Public benefit is unclear. Who wins? The McCaskeys. Who pays? Everyone else.

Key questions to ask

1. What is the total public investment including all infrastructure categories? 2. What percentage of development profits will the public receive? 3. What binding transit commitments exist (not plans — commitments)? 4. How will traffic mitigation be funded long-term? 5. What happens if economic projections aren't met? 6. Why should suburban infrastructure be prioritized over Chicago and underserved areas?

Until these questions get answered clearly, the Arlington Heights proposal remains a subsidy request dressed as an "investment."

Sources

- Chicago Bears official communications - Village of Arlington Heights planning documents - IDOT traffic data - Metra service analysis - Academic research on stadium economics (Zimbalist, Noll, Matheson) - News coverage: Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, Daily Herald