The Chicago Bears said Thursday that they have exhausted every opportunity to stay in Chicago, declaring flatly that "there is not a viable site in the city," and naming Arlington Heights and Hammond as the only sites under consideration.
The statement was unambiguous: "The Chicago Bears have exhausted every opportunity to stay in Chicago, which was our initial goal," the team said Thursday, adding, "There is not a viable site in the city. As a result, the only sites under consideration are in Arlington Heights and Hammond."
Kevin Warren, who last month said the team hoped to choose a new site for an enclosed stadium "late this spring or early in the summer," has described the options positively: "Both of the sites are excellent sites." The arithmetic behind that narrowing is stark for Chicago — the Bears have played at Soldier Field for more than half a century and have never owned their stadium since moving to Chicago in 1921, after the franchise began in Illinois in 1920 as the Decatur Staleys.
The choices under consideration carry clear physical and political footprints. The Bears own a 326-acre tract of land in Arlington Heights. The alternative in Indiana would place the team roughly 25 miles from Soldier Field in a plan that Indiana lawmakers are promoting, including financing and building a domed stadium in Hammond.
Both states have moved to press their cases. The Illinois General Assembly responded to the Arlington Heights proposal with legislation to give tax breaks to megaprojects of at least $100 million. Indiana lawmakers have offered their own package aimed at keeping the team in the state by backing the Hammond plan. The dispersal of offers has turned the stadium search into a high-stakes negotiation between suburbs and a neighboring state as the Illinois legislative session nears adjournment.
The public commentary this week has underlined the friction around the announcement. The league office framed the process as part of a broader run of stadium projects: "There was a report on all of the stadium projects. We’re in the midst of what we would call a very significant stadium construction period and/or significant renovations," Commissioner Roger Goodell said this week, and local observers warned that more moves could follow. Last week, team commentator Jason Lee said, "There’s a lot more shoes left to drop," and civic adviser Bill Cunningham said, "I think it’s breathed life into the mayor’s claim that Chicago still has a chance." Those assessments sit uneasily with the Bears’ Thursday statement that Chicago is no longer viable.
The narrowing also crystallizes a long-running fact: since 1921 the franchise has played in Chicago but has never owned its stadium. That history matters on two levels — the practical, in the form of available land and infrastructure, and the political, as Springfield and Indianapolis courts jockey for leverage with tax and financing offers.
With Warren’s public timetable — a decision expected late this spring or early in the summer — the dispute now moves from argument to deadline. The team has said it exhausted opportunities in Chicago; state and local officials have countered with incentives and proposals. The most consequential question left is no longer whether a major offer will appear, but which of the two sites the Bears will pick within the window Warren outlined.
