The new Chicago Bears football stadium proposed for the West Side won`t produce many jobs or foster much economic development for the surrounding area, according to a new report from the University of Illinois-Chicago.
That view was immediately challenged, however, by pro-stadium urbanists who see the football palace as the area`s best chance to avoid another 20 years of economic stagnation.
”The stadium will focus political, corporate and financial attention on an area that hasn`t gotten any in decades,” said John LaMotte, an architect who prepared the initial ”concept” of how the stadium could foster wider redevelopment.
But LaMotte is looking through rose-colored glasses, according to Stephen Steinhoff, a researcher with UIC`s Nathalie P. Voorhees Center for Neighborhood and Community Improvement.
In recent months the Voorhees Center has provided technical support to the Interfaith Organizing Project, the group of West Side churchmen opposed to the stadium.
In his new report, Steinhoff concludes that:
– Low-income West Siders would get only about 30 of the 1,000 construction jobs at the sports complex, mainly because of racial
discrimination within the building trades here;
– Neighborhood residents might land about 330 permanent jobs at the complex-about one-third of those produced-but all but a few of the positions would be low-paying service jobs like food vendor or parking attendant;
– Because it will be located 20 blocks west of the Loop, the new stadium isn`t apt to stimulate much peripheral development;
– Money spent by football fans will be captured by the sports complex and won`t trickle out into the community;
– The stadium will raise property values and rents, forcing many low-income families to leave the area.
Though the stadium itself is to be privately financed, Steinhoff notes that state and local taxpayers will be asked to spend about $50 million for nearby public works and housing for the displaced.
If economic development is the goal, Steinhoff writes, the $50 million would be better spent on ”alternative job creation strategies.”
Steinhoff is vague about what those strategies should be, other than to build on industry already there with capital improvements, ”aggressive loan packaging” and job-training programs.
He dismisses the plan to develop a model neighborhood across Damen Avenue west of the stadium site, saying: ”The history of such efforts in Chicago is one of broken promises and displacement.”
Like other stadium critics, Steinhoff lists past urban renewal projects here that forced families to move from their homes with little or no compensation.
