Another example of RFPs versus plans and letting developers set the agenda: stadium projects in Chicago

 I write ad infinitum about the difference between an RFP and a plan.  The first seeks proposals without any sense of priorities for the land/project under consideration.  A plan creates a set of priorities.

The Chicago Architecture Center has produced a report, Win Win: The New Game Plan for Urban Stadiums, making the point that the four projects up for action in Chicagoland:

• a professional football stadium
• new White Sox stadium
• a stadium for men's professional soccer
• a new United Center

are much better opportunities than the current system allows for.

From the Crain's Chicago Business article "Stadium task force says Chicago is reacting, not planning — and needs to flip the script":

Chicago should overhaul its sports facilities authority and make it the lead negotiator on stadium deals rather than letting teams set the terms, according to a new report from a task force of civic leaders.

And the current pursuits by five different franchises for projects totaling upwards of $14 billion create an opportunity city and state leaders are squandering by reacting defensively to team proposals instead of shaping stadium districts that serve broader public goals.

The projects have different timelines, priorities and visions and come with little coordination among them, the task force wrote in the analysis published today, yet all require substantial investment of taxpayer dollars at a time when state and local governments can't afford it. 

That's what prompted the task force to pitch a different approach: Reforming Illinois' sports facilities authority into a development entity that can take the lead in shaping new stadium districts for Chicago's pro teams rather than the other way around.

Using the traditional reactive approach to controversial requests by teams for public help, city and state officials will forge projects with "familiar outcomes" that have limited impact beyond game days, the report said.

I think the CAC report is a good sum up of the issues, in an attempt to have public jurisdictions take the lead on such development, especially when the teams seek billions of dollars in public monies.

And its relevant to every city dealing with the explosion of proposals for replacement stadiums and arenas for baseball, football, basketball and hockey, team relocation, and for men's and women's soccer teams.

Also see:

-- "Sports facilities and the reproduction of retail space often doesn't work for the locals," 2025

-- "You get what you plan for: the multi-use Miami Hard Rock Stadium versus typical football stadiums | Washington Commanders," 2025

-- "Framework of characteristics that support successful community development in association with the development of professional sports facilities," 2021

-- "Suburban stadium/arena interest a function of new, younger generations of ownership or a better real estate play?," 2023

-- "Capital One Arena, Wizards and Capitals may move to Alexandria | Why not the RFK campus," 2023

-- "Good quote on arenas and stadiums as "performing arts centers" attractions for cities," 2024

-- "Revisiting "Framework of characteristics that support successful community development in association with the development of professional sports facilities" and the Tampa Bay Rays baseball team + Phoenix Coyotes hockey," 2022