Inside the Chicago Olympic Bid
>> Thursday
As many of our readers and bloggers know, Chicago is in the bidding process for the 2016 Summer Olympics. The Chicago Tribune has obtained the details of the city's bid, which has already been submitted to the USOC. SI.com's Maggie Haskins chimes in as well, but the crux of her argument seems to be "wouldn't it be neat if..."
Pat and I have been known to differ on this topic, so I'm looking forward to his response. Some thoughts on the bid...
1.) From the looks of the bid, absolutely zero public money is being used. Amazing. I don't buy it. Two billion dollars in private funding? From where?
2.) Most of the events would be held within a mile of the Olympic Village (just south of McCormick Place). I-55, I-90/94, Lake Shore Drive, and general Loop/downtown traffic are already motorists' nightmares. The Summer Games would come in the heart of summer construction season. Throw in 15,000 athletes, and media, PLUS spectators. Yikes.
3.) A new aquatics center would be built on the campus of IIT for the games...and then what? I may be off since it's been about 10 years since I've swam competitively, but Chicago doesn't really seem like a huge market for swimmers and fans who would go to watch swimming after the Olympics.
4.) The plan calls for a temporary 80,000-seat stadium to be constructed just South of Soldier Field. Just imagine this. A stadium 33% bigger than Soldier Field, or the size of Camp Randall that would only be used for 4 weeks in total (Olympics and Paralympics). What an eyesore. Vinnie, what do you know about temporary construction? I'm imagining those bleacher grandstands or whatever they use for the British Open.
5.) Two different stadiums would be used for the opening and closing ceremonies. Not the opening ceremonies at one site and the closing ceremonies at another. I mean the athletes would walk from one stadium to another during the opening and closing ceremonies. This move is only to sell more tickets. Shameless.
6.) Likewise, having been to Soldier Field numerous times, parking at the lakefront gets scarce and traffic on Lake Shore Drive gets woolly when there's a FIRE game (average attendance, about 15,000). The entire parking lot only has one exit onto LSD. I have never been there for a Bears game but have heard stories. Now we're going to more than double the capacity of this stadium complex, raising it to over 140,000 and bring in all these spectators from all over the country/globe? Where is the extra parking going to come from? The surrounding area is pretty developed with condos and high-rises in the South Loop neighborhood. I just can't see where they'd fit the parking.
As much worldwide attention as the games would bring Chicago, and as cool as it would be to come home from work and go to the Olympic events that night, I can't see this as a good idea. Someone prove me wrong.
Posts
3 comments:
I know nothing about construction. I am terrible at my job.
As far as Chicago hosting the Olympics, I agree that it's a terrible idea. Granted, it's mostly because I don't want all those foreigners coming here and crowding our streets and using our toilets.
Even more so, I think the idea of bringing more worldwide exposure is a joke. Isn't Chicago already world-famous. Like, really really famous? I don't know, I never grew up the first 22 years of my life overseas. Maybe I'm just ignorant.
Hell, I'll beat Pat to it...
1) Two billion in private fundings? Everyone knows that Chicago has one of the most corrupt political systems in the country. If it is ever going to be used for good, it is now...Seriously, I'm pretty sure Chi-Town could come up with this money.
2) L.A. did it...in the year that many of us (most importantly me, were born).
3) Chicago has like, what, three million people? Along with New York and L.A. Chicago is one of the three cities in the U.S. that will never have a problem finding a use for a building of ANY kind. If they opened a place like that to the public you don't think they'd rake in fat cash?
4) This is really the only legitimate argument for not going to Chicago. (Although the Cubs could use a new stadiium)
Still, the cost of building, re-locating this building would be more than made up for with the revenue Chicago would make from hosting the Olympics. Otherwise, I rever to my argument that a building of that size, in a city of 3 million+ people, could always be used for something.
5) First, why does this exclude Chicago? Second, it probably won't actually happen...because it's dumb.
6) Where is the extra parking going to come from? = $$$$ for Chicago
Like I said before, L.A. did it. And if Chicagoans have a chance to swindle people out of their money, they'll do it. Besides...Atlanta anyone?
Some good points raised, but let me say that the Atlanta Games are not a fair comparison. Events for the Atlanta games were held with many events in Atlanta proper, but the rest were scattered all over the rest of Georgia, including Athens, Gainesville, Conyers, and I even remember some kayaking events took place in Tennessee.
In Chicago's bid, the only events taking place outside the Chicago metro area are a few soccer games to be played at Notre Dame, and some kayaking in South Bend. These games will be much more concentrated in the metro area. Likewise, Los Angeles as a city is much more spread out. There really isn't a "metro area" to LA. There's a central business district with skyscrapers, but nothing that could be considered a "downtown."
When talking about extra parking, the issue isn't that it wouldn't be any money for the city. It's that there's no space! The area around Soldier Field is highly developed (Grant Park, Condos, McCormick Place, Lake) and this temporary Camp Randall would be sitting on Soldier Field's biggest parking lot. There wouldn't even be enough parking for Soldier Field, much less for this new stadium
Post a Comment