Jump to content

Chicago's Bid for the 2016 Olympic Games


Fred T. Jane

Recommended Posts

The olympics have become way too big for it's own good. the IOC should elminiate some of these sports and some of these bid organisations should look at building smaller facilities (if done by scratch), not over-the-top white elephants. If much of costs are used to vastly improve the transportation and housing infrastructure, then I think you can justify an olympic bid because you need those facilities when the population grows, even in a city like Chicago. However, if the point of the games are simply to build sporting facilities, then I don't think going after the olympics are such a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 166
  • Created
  • Last Reply
If much of costs are used to vastly improve the transportation and housing infrastructure, then I think you can justify an olympic bid because you need those facilities when the population grows, even in a city like Chicago. However, if the point of the games are simply to build sporting facilities, then I don't think going after the olympics are such a good idea.

Many of the facilities for the Chicago 2016 Olympic Summer Games already exist - i.e., Soldier Field, United Center, UIC Pavilion, McCormick Place, Allstate Arena, Chicago State University Convocation Center, Ryan Field, Huskie Stadium, etc.

The major structures that need to be built are the Olympic Stadium (which will be converted into a 5,000-seat amphitheatre after the games), the Olympic Village (which will be converted into mixed-income housing), the Aquatic Center, and an Equestrian Center (in suburban Lake County, Illinois). Additionally, cycling and beach volleyball venues will be situated at Northerly Island, archery will take place in Grant Park, hockey fields will be placed in Jackson Park, tennis and slalom rowing facilities will be set-up in Lincoln Park, and sailing and flatwater rowing/canoeing areas will be on the Lakefront.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So they will build a stadium that will be used for 2 week, tear it down, and make it into a little theatre. Come On, why not use it for Northwestern. If they want to use it, and pay for part of it. In 2016 Ryan Stadium will be 90 years old, they are a BCS conference team (Not nessecaraly a BCS worthy team) so they should draw well in 10+ years, espically with a new stadium. I don't know if this will be beneficial to Northwestern, but I think it might be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the regional pride and global recognition that comes with hosting the Olympics, but I would not want to live in a city that does so. If not the construction, then the media blitz, the influx of tourists, the security hassles, and the two to three weeks of gridlock in the city.

Should Chicago win its bid, congratulations. I'm just happy I won't be there for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So they will build a stadium that will be used for 2 week, tear it down, and make it into a little theatre. Come On, why not use it for Northwestern.

No chance. The residents of the Washington Park neighborhood don't want a permanent 85,000-seat structure in the park following the Olympic Games. Aditionally, Northwestern University's football program doesn't want to have to travel from a Northern Chicago suburb to the city's South Side in order to play home football games. Further, organizers of the games don't want the Opening and Closing ceremonies and Athletics events to take place in Evanston rather than Chicago, so the facility isn't going to be built closer to the Northwestern campus. Finally, building a stadium that will be downsized to 5,000 seats after the games will allow for the use of design techniques and materials that will make construction of the facility less expensive than building a permanent 85,000-seat edifice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the regional pride and global recognition that comes with hosting the Olympics, but I would not want to live in a city that does so. If not the construction, then the media blitz, the influx of tourists, the security hassles, and the two to three weeks of gridlock in the city.

Should Chicago win its bid, congratulations. I'm just happy I won't be there for it.

I agree 100%, and actually more like 110% because I'll be living in the city by then. Chicago with Olympic levels of traffic? Frightening. Daley, you've done so much for the city, trust us. A lesser man would've let the city fall apart like Detroit. You needn't deliver us the Olympics to cement your legacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So they will build a stadium that will be used for 2 week, tear it down, and make it into a little theatre. Come On, why not use it for Northwestern. If they want to use it, and pay for part of it. In 2016 Ryan Stadium will be 90 years old, they are a BCS conference team (Not nessecaraly a BCS worthy team) so they should draw well in 10+ years, espically with a new stadium. I don't know if this will be beneficial to Northwestern, but I think it might be.

It'd only be 20 years off a significant renovation...

That said, this is the Big Ten....

Beaver Stadium (Penn State) would be 107 years old (sort of)

Camp Randall Stadium (Wisconsin) would be 99 years old

Ohio Stadium (Ohio State) would be 94 years old

Spartan Stadium (Michigan State) would be 93 years old

Memorial Stadium (Illinois) would be 93 years old

Ross-Ade Stadium (Purdue) would be 92 years old

Michigan Stadium (Michigan) would be 89 years old

Kinnick Stadium (Iowa) would be 87 years old

So its not like they're unique in the "old stadium department"

-Granted, many of the above stadia have completed in the last couple of years, or are currently recieving major "SLEP" renovations...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If much of costs are used to vastly improve the transportation and housing infrastructure, then I think you can justify an olympic bid because you need those facilities when the population grows, even in a city like Chicago. However, if the point of the games are simply to build sporting facilities, then I don't think going after the olympics are such a good idea.

Many of the facilities for the Chicago 2016 Olympic Summer Games already exist - i.e., Soldier Field, United Center, UIC Pavilion, McCormick Place, Allstate Arena, Chicago State University Convocation Center, Ryan Field, Huskie Stadium, etc.

The major structures that need to be built are the Olympic Stadium (which will be converted into a 5,000-seat amphitheatre after the games), the Olympic Village (which will be converted into mixed-income housing), the Aquatic Center, and an Equestrian Center (in suburban Lake County, Illinois). Additionally, cycling and beach volleyball venues will be situated at Northerly Island, archery will take place in Grant Park, hockey fields will be placed in Jackson Park, tennis and slalom rowing facilities will be set-up in Lincoln Park, and sailing and flatwater rowing/canoeing areas will be on the Lakefront.

That's true, Chicago already has many facilities. But that Olympic Stadium is costly in of itself and don't kid yourself into thinking that the other facilities needed are not that costly. Let's not forget about how security might cost. Who knows how much that will be in 9 years time. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I skip over something? Why isn't Toyota Park being mentioned as a soccer venue?

I don't think that Toyota Park has been mentioned here, but I would be surprised if that wasn't a soccer venue. It's right by Chicago and is only about 2 years old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the regional pride and global recognition that comes with hosting the Olympics, but I would not want to live in a city that does so. If not the construction, then the media blitz, the influx of tourists, the security hassles, and the two to three weeks of gridlock in the city.

Should Chicago win its bid, congratulations. I'm just happy I won't be there for it.

I agree 100%, and actually more like 110% because I'll be living in the city by then. Chicago with Olympic levels of traffic? Frightening. Daley, you've done so much for the city, trust us. A lesser man would've let the city fall apart like Detroit. You needn't deliver us the Olympics to cement your legacy.

LOL, it always amuses me how often Chicagoans (or people who like it) have to talk s**t on another Midwestern city just to talk about how "good" Chicago is. If it's not "we're better than Detroit," it's "We're better than Milwaukee." And if not that it's "We're better than St. Louis, etc."

Having lived in both Chicago and Detroit, I'd easily choose Detroit if I HAD to move back to one of them. Sure, I could send prettier postcards back home if I chose Chicago, but at least in Detroit I wouldn't have to worry about the city coming to bulldoze my home just so they can put up another f***ing condo tower. Daley's gentrification kick has forced a ridiculous number of Black residents into the suburbs where (ironically) it's now cheaper to live. That's definetly not the sign of a city that deserves to host an international and multicultural event like the olympics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Detroit may have its merits, but some serious things went wrong there to end up with the white flight that Motown suffered. That's a problem, if you ask me. Cities should be lively and diverse, not blighted and abandoned, which has happened to too much of what by all means really ought to be a really cool city, not a punchline. I don't agree with how Daley did a lot of what he's done, but sometimes you need a little corruption to get results, and the results are that Chicago hasn't suffered from the same downturns that other Great Lakes cities have, like Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo.

Daley's gentrification kick has forced a ridiculous number of Black residents into the suburbs where (ironically) it's now cheaper to live. That's definetly not the sign of a city that deserves to host an international and multicultural event like the olympics.

Chicago is very international and multicultural, like any city of that size and prominence ought to be. Cities aren't the birthright and exclusive province of black people, you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Detroit may have its merits, but some serious things went wrong there to end up with the white flight that Motown suffered. That's a problem, if you ask me. Cities should be lively and diverse, not blighted and abandoned, which has happened to too much of what by all means really ought to be a really cool city, not a punchline. I don't agree with how Daley did a lot of what he's done, but sometimes you need a little corruption to get results, and the results are that Chicago hasn't suffered from the same downturns that other Great Lakes cities have, like Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo.

And people wonder why I can't take Chicago seriously...

BTW, Detroit is actually quite lively and cool. And it's full of neighborhoods that are reinventing themselves WITHOUT gentrification. Maybe you'd know that if you actually spent some time there instead of relying on media stereotypes.

Daley's gentrification kick has forced a ridiculous number of Black residents into the suburbs where (ironically) it's now cheaper to live. That's definetly not the sign of a city that deserves to host an international and multicultural event like the olympics.

Chicago is very international and multicultural, like any city of that size and prominence ought to be. Cities aren't the birthright and exclusive province of black people, you know.

I'm sorry, I thought part of being multicultural was respecting the fact that people of all different backgrounds have a right to live where they want to. Especially when it's the only place that said people can afford to live.

Gentrification is not progress... it's just a sorry a*s excuse for politicans not to have to deal with the issues they helped create.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Detroit may have its merits, but some serious things went wrong there to end up with the white flight that Motown suffered. That's a problem, if you ask me. Cities should be lively and diverse, not blighted and abandoned, which has happened to too much of what by all means really ought to be a really cool city, not a punchline. I don't agree with how Daley did a lot of what he's done, but sometimes you need a little corruption to get results, and the results are that Chicago hasn't suffered from the same downturns that other Great Lakes cities have, like Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo.

And people wonder why I can't take Chicago seriously...

BTW, Detroit is actually quite lively and cool. And it's full of neighborhoods that are reinventing themselves WITHOUT gentrification. Maybe you'd know that if you actually spent some time there instead of relying on media stereotypes.

They say a picture's worth a thousand words, and I've seen enough pictures of abandoned, bombed out buildings in Detroit taken recently to know that Motown has a problem. Although I'm pretty sure that when it comes to corruption in urban leadership, its not the exclusive province of Chicago.

Daley's gentrification kick has forced a ridiculous number of Black residents into the suburbs where (ironically) it's now cheaper to live. That's definetly not the sign of a city that deserves to host an international and multicultural event like the olympics.

Chicago is very international and multicultural, like any city of that size and prominence ought to be. Cities aren't the birthright and exclusive province of black people, you know.

I'm sorry, I thought part of being multicultural was respecting the fact that people of all different backgrounds have a right to live where they want to. Especially when it's the only place that said people can afford to live.

Gentrification is not progress... it's just a sorry a*s excuse for politicans not to have to deal with the issues they helped create.

I think that's what Sobriquet! was getting at...other people besides African Americans want to live within the city.

Besides, it could be worse...Beijing's reportedly deporting all of the malcontents and undesirables within 150-mile radius of the city and event areas to the boonies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a lifelong resident of Chicago's suburbs, who has seen the vast improvements made to the city over the last 15 years, truly making Chicago a world-class city again, all I can say is, good Lord, I hope the Olympics don't come here to ruin it all.

The Olympics would be a gaping money pit for a state and county whose finances are already hanging by a thread. The tourist dollars and potential global awareness generated would never make up for hundreds of millions of dollars piddled away on this 16-day fiasco. And as someone more observant than me noted, is it a wise idea for the event that lends itself to curruption and favoritism arguably better than anything else on this planet of ours to come to the city that wrote the "how-to" guides on those two subjects?

Then there's the issue of infrastructure, especially traffic. Chicagoland has a sprawling mass-transit system. But Chicago also has a grossly-underfunded, crumbling mass-transit system. Stretches of the El are over 100 years old - and while the ancient Brown Line is undergoing $500 million in renovations, a 3-year-long project, the Blue Line, serving the West Side and Northwest Sides through downtown and out to O'Hare, is in such horrendous shape that what was a 30-minute trip a few years ago now routinely takes over an hour. Metra, the suburban rail service, is also facing major budget issues. And the expressways - oy. The Dan Ryan is undergoing a gigantic renovation project, but that trip during a summer rush hour's still gonna be an hour outbound, I don't care how many lanes you put on it. And all of the other area expressways are likely gonna need major upgrades in the next nine years, and there's just no money for it. And the only solution our esteemed governor can come up with is a tax plan so absurd, even his second-in-command is speaking out against it.

So go Rio, go Tokyo, go Rome, go Madrid. If 2009 comes and Chicago gets announced as the winning bidder, the next day, I'm marching in to my boss' office and putting in a 16-day vacation request for 2016.

P.S. I've been to Detroit twice. A friend of mine has gone a few times. Everything a couple blocks outside of Comerica/Ford Field is a hole.

218016322_m.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NBC just broke the story during the hockey broadcast, and here's the web report.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18109665/

Chicago picked to represent U.S. in Olympic bid

City beats out L.A. to become America's candidate for 2016 Games

BREAKING NEWS

MSNBC News Services

Updated: 4:16 p.m. ET April 14, 2007

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Olympic Committee picked Chicago over Los Angeles to become the U.S. candidate to host the 2016 Summer Games on Saturday.

Representatives from Chicago and Los Angeles delivered the cities? final pitches Saturday afternoon. Each city gave a 40-minute presentation to the 11-member USOC board of directors.

Chicago has never hosted the Olympics; Los Angeles staged the 1932 and 1984 Summer Games.

Chicago went first Saturday, and its bid committee chairman, Patrick Ryan, said topics covered by USOC questions included venue plans, security and financial guarantees.

?They were just subjects we expected they would want to get clarification on,? Ryan said.

Mayor Richard Daley called it a ?friendly atmosphere.?

Chicago will go into a list of candidates for the 2016 Olympics, a group expected to include Madrid, Prague, Rome, Rio de Janeiro and Tokyo. The International Olympic Committee will award the 2016 Olympics in October 2009.

The USOC revamped its domestic selection process after the troubles New York City encountered in the 2012 selection. Financing for a stadium in Manhattan fell through with just weeks left before the IOC vote. New York only got 16 of the 60 votes needed and the Americans walked away embarrassed.

Led by chairman Peter Ueberroth ? who ran the 1984 Los Angeles Games ? the USOC has insisted that financing be in place and transparent, and that governments be willing to backstop these bids if private money doesn?t cover all the costs. Both the city of Chicago and the state of California have complied.

EEEEEEEEYYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!

(translation)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

I know there won't be enough private money (they're always over budget), and Illinois cannot afford an Olympics. Not now, not in 2016, not in the next couple of decades.

*starts cursing the God who has turned his back on this state*

UEBERROTH TO NEW YORK...DROP DEAD!!!!!!

NBC just broke the story during the hockey broadcast, and here's the web report.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18109665/

Chicago picked to represent U.S. in Olympic bid

City beats out L.A. to become America's candidate for 2016 Games

BREAKING NEWS

MSNBC News Services

Updated: 4:16 p.m. ET April 14, 2007

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Olympic Committee picked Chicago over Los Angeles to become the U.S. candidate to host the 2016 Summer Games on Saturday.

Representatives from Chicago and Los Angeles delivered the cities? final pitches Saturday afternoon. Each city gave a 40-minute presentation to the 11-member USOC board of directors.

Chicago has never hosted the Olympics; Los Angeles staged the 1932 and 1984 Summer Games.

Chicago went first Saturday, and its bid committee chairman, Patrick Ryan, said topics covered by USOC questions included venue plans, security and financial guarantees.

?They were just subjects we expected they would want to get clarification on,? Ryan said.

Mayor Richard Daley called it a ?friendly atmosphere.?

Chicago will go into a list of candidates for the 2016 Olympics, a group expected to include Madrid, Prague, Rome, Rio de Janeiro and Tokyo. The International Olympic Committee will award the 2016 Olympics in October 2009.

The USOC revamped its domestic selection process after the troubles New York City encountered in the 2012 selection. Financing for a stadium in Manhattan fell through with just weeks left before the IOC vote. New York only got 16 of the 60 votes needed and the Americans walked away embarrassed.

Led by chairman Peter Ueberroth ? who ran the 1984 Los Angeles Games ? the USOC has insisted that financing be in place and transparent, and that governments be willing to backstop these bids if private money doesn?t cover all the costs. Both the city of Chicago and the state of California have complied.

EEEEEEEEYYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!

(translation)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

I know there won't be enough private money (they're always over budget), and Illinois cannot afford an Olympics. Not now, not in 2016, not in the next couple of decades.

*starts cursing the God who has turned his back on this state*

UEBERROTH TO NEW YORK...DROP DEAD!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the event that Chicago gets the 2016 games from the IOC, great, if not, then it will be the responsibility of tourists of other cities to finance it and hopefully it wil not cause the troubles that it caused in Montreal and Athens. Like other facilities, car/hotel taxes will try to fund the majority of the projects that use public funds. If they win in 2009, where it will assist most is in the possible expansion of O'Hare and Midway.

If anyone has looked at what is occurring in London 2012, their budget has skyrocketed and the need for much more governmental assistance has already occurred. In 2005 when they won the bid, it ws estimated that it would cost them nearly $6 billion. Today, they estimate $17 billion. Look at the stories from the BBC to look at their frustration. Plus, the new Wembly is not going to be the main stadium. They play on a new facility for ahtletics and the ceremonies, then scaling it down for after the games.

For those who are anti-Chicago, were you for another LA bid and why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.