West side stadia district?

By PAUL M. GREEN

In 1929 University of Chicago Professor Charles Merriam, a nationally known political scientist and former Chicago alderman and mayoral candidate, wrote, "The strength of Chicago lies in its broad economic basis, in its blend of racial types, in its dynamic energy and drive, in its free spirit, and. . . in its open way to leadership of urban progress."

That was the year the Chicago Stadium opened its doors as an indoor exhibition and sports arena on the city's populous west side. The completion of the stadium capped a remarkable two decade boom of booster-oriented stadia growth. In 1910 the Comiskeys had built a baseball park for their White Sox, and three years later the Wrigleys did the same for their Chicago Cubs. In 1925 the huge Grant Park stadium, later renamed Soldier Field, was built as an all-purpose outdoor stadium by the city and the South Park Commission (the latter would be merged in the mid-1930s with two other city park commissions into the present Chicago Park District).

Private sector profit triggered much of this unprecedented stadium growth, but there was more to it than greed or financial gain. Team owners, governmental leaders and city residents truly saw this construction as boosting civic pride, aiding economic growth and expanding job opportunities.

Historically Chicagoans have always believed in the "builder tradition." Today that notion has been somewhat tempered by self-proclaimed apostles of economic and political fairness. They go far beyond sound regulatory and ethical principles of zoning, environmental impact and public good in attempting to prevent needed urban growth.

What is tragic about the chaos on the city's near west side — the site of the proposed Chicago Bears outdoor stadium and a new Chicago Blackhawks/Bulls indoor arena — is that both public and private interests have made good faith offers of economic assistance to the few local residents living in the proposed stadium neighborhood.

Instead of becoming partners in the process, a handful of residents have taken a dogged political stand against the alleged greedy and heartless white team owners and the near politically helpless black city administration. Offers of buyouts, housing trust funds, jobs creation and new educational opportunities have fallen on deaf ears. Equally unmoving has been the civic argument that the current stalemate is an urban embarrassment that has caused needless delay, lost revenue and job loss.

In this admittedly complicated issue involving big egos and big bucks, the community organizers aiding the west side residents do not realize it's Horace Greeley time in downtown Chicago real estate. Developers are heading west from the Loop, and they are gentrifying in piecemeal fashion — block by block — the old and dilapidated neighborhoods. In a few short years residents in the proposed stadium area will have their various tiny bailiwicks picked off one by one, forcing them to leave their community for economic reasons without anything to show for their intransigence.

Back in 1929 the arrival of the Chicago Stadium was met with great fanfare. Those stadium promoters had successfully packaged their building as a good thing for the neighborhood, the city and economic development. Obviously coming hard times and changing demographics would alter the surrounding community (photos at the time reveal a far more established and prosperous community than exists today), but the entire stadium project was viewed as an economically beneficial enterprise for entrepreneurs, neighborhood residents and the city as a whole.

Today Chicago is facing ongoing economic problems, especially for its poorest citizens. Since 1970 the city has lost one-half of its factories and close to 250,000 manufacturing jobs; one-half its public school children are not graduating

March 1989 | Illinois Issues | 36

from high school; and the need has become acute for affordable housing for those with low and moderate incomes. Those problems will not go away by settling the stadium issue on the west side. But willing that issue will be a step in the rigth direction. Hard negotiations can give affected west side dwellers opportunities for advancement that they will not receive from any other source in the forseeable future.

Thus, in the booster spirit of Professor Merriam, I offer a possible solution to the impasse. I would declare the west side area under discussion a recreation and convention district. It could have a quasi-public board in the manner of the McCormick Place Fair & Exhibition Authority (or even be run by the McCormick Place Board itself). No residential housing would be permitted within the district's boundaries. Existing home owners would receive fair market value plus 25 percent for their property or would have comparable housing built for them outside the district. Renters would have moving costs paid and be financially assisted in finding new and and better rental housing. Incoming commercial developers working with the nearby University of Illinois-Chicago and Malcolm X City College would set up an educational training scholarship fund; using those scholarships residents would have the skills to guarantee first crack at the new and good jobs being created when the economic boom hits the district. West of the proposed stadium district there is much developable residential land begging for affordable housing for low- and moderate-income people; it's a logical housing site for former stadium district residents. Key to my proposal is that the construction of affordable housing and any stadium must begin at the same time.

As for the recreation and convention district, the developmental possibilities are unlimited: a new outdoor football stadium, a new indoor Chicago stadium (to replace or better set be connected to the existing stadium), new hotels, new restaurants, new shops. All would rejuvenate the west side. Chicago would have a first-rate facility to attract national conventions (political and otherwise) and more trade shows and have a city sports center to rival an Olympic site.

Paul M. Green is director of the Institute for Public Policy and Administration, Governors State University.

March 1989 | Illinois Issues | 37