The Lakefront Is the Best Option — Fact Check

The Bears say the lakefront is Chicago's best option for a new stadium. They call it an investment in the city's future. A chance to build something special on the water.

By Dear Kevin Warren · 2026-01-22

The Bears say the lakefront is Chicago's best option for a new stadium. They call it an investment in the city's future. A chance to build something special on the water.

Sounds reasonable until you look at what it actually means.

What They're Really Proposing

When the Bears say lakefront site, they mean public land. Land protected by law. Land that belongs to everyone.

The lakefront isn't ordinary real estate. It's held in public trust, governed by the Lakefront Protection Ordinance and over a century of legal precedent. Montgomery Ward won four lawsuits to keep it that way. Daniel Burnham designed Chicago's shoreline to remain "forever open, clear, and free."

Building a stadium that primarily serves a private franchise on protected public land isn't an investment in the city. It's a transfer of public resources to private wealth.

The Urban Planning Problem

Bears officials talk about transit access and foot traffic. They point to the museum campus location as proof the site works.

Here's what they skip over: Soldier Field already exists there. The question isn't whether a stadium can work on the lakefront. It's whether taxpayers should fund a new one when the current facility can be upgraded.

The 2003 renovation proved Soldier Field can be modernized. The Park District owns it. The Bears pay rent. That structure works. It's worked for decades.

What the Bears want is different: more control over the facility and a bigger cut of revenue. A "new" lakefront stadium would likely mean different lease terms. Watch those negotiations carefully.

Community Impact Nobody Discusses

Stadium construction on the lakefront would mean years of disruption to one of Chicago's most used public spaces. The museum campus, the lakefront trail, the green space between the museums... all torn up for a multi-year construction project.

And for what? Ten home games a year. Maybe a few concerts. The rest of the time, an empty stadium sitting on the most valuable public land in the Midwest.

Compare that to how Chicagoans use the lakefront now. Every day, thousands of people are out there running and biking before work, eating lunch by the water, walking home along the shore. The lakefront is in use 365 days a year. A dome built for NFL revenue? Maybe 25 days.

The "Only Option" Myth

Bears officials frame the lakefront as the only viable Chicago option. Arlington Heights fell through. Indiana isn't real. The lakefront or nothing.

This is negotiating leverage, not planning reality.

Soldier Field can be upgraded to meet modern standards while keeping the stadium on public land under public ownership. There's no physical or legal barrier to another upgrade.

The Bears don't want renovation because renovation doesn't give them what they really want: control of the land and a larger share of stadium revenue. That's a business preference, not an urban planning requirement.

What Burnham Actually Designed

Kevin Warren likes to invoke Daniel Burnham. Big plans. Bold vision. That kind of thing.

Burnham's actual plan protected the lakefront from private development. The 1909 Plan of Chicago explicitly called for continuous public parkland along the shore. No private development on the water. Museums, cultural institutions, and public spaces only.

Soldier Field was built under that framework as a war memorial and civic stadium, not a private venue. The Bears didn't even arrive until 1971.

Using Burnham's name to justify privatizing lakefront resources gets the history exactly backward.

Who Benefits

When billionaires build stadiums on public land with public money, franchise values explode. The Minnesota Vikings were worth $800 million before their stadium campaign. Now they're valued at $4.7 billion.

If the lakefront is really the "best option," ask who it's best for. The McCaskey family's net worth? Or Chicago residents who use the shoreline every day?

The public trust doctrine exists for exactly this reason. Some land isn't supposed to generate private profit. Some resources belong to everyone.

The Alternative

Here's what Chicago could do instead: invest in lakefront access without building a new stadium.

Make it easier to cross Lake Shore Drive on foot. Run better transit to the museum campus. Use the existing stadium for more events year-round.

Those improvements help everyone who uses the lakefront, not just Bears season ticket holders. And they don't require handing public land to a private franchise.

Soldier Field can be upgraded to meet modern standards while staying publicly owned. The Bears can remain tenants. The legal framework that protected the shoreline for over 100 years stays intact.

The Real Test

The lakefront isn't the best option for Chicago. It's the most profitable option for the Bears.

That's fine. Private companies pursue profit. But the city's job is to represent residents, not team owners.

When Bears officials say the lakefront is Chicago's best option, ask them: best for whom?

Sources

- The Lakefront Protection Ordinance](/articles/lakefront-protection-ordinance) — Why the ordinance exists - Public land, private profit](/articles/public-land-private-profit) — Legal and policy analysis of stadium deals - Chicago's lakefront history](/articles/chicago-lakefront) — How the shoreline was protected - Quotes database](/sources/quotes?topic=lakefront) — Official statements on the lakefront

Primary sources

- Burnham & Bennett, "Plan of Chicago" (1909) - Chicago Municipal Code, Chapter 16-4: Lakefront Protection Ordinance (1973) - Montgomery Ward v. Field Museum (1909) and related Illinois Supreme Court cases