41 replies to this topic

[ejaycat]

LA84, on Aug 10 2006, 11:33 AM, said:

Until we see what the plans are for the Chicago stadium we can't make a judgement as to whether the IOC will buy it or not. The committee has already promised that there will be a legacy thingy attached with it as well as an Olympic Park.

Granted, the IOC was steamed about how Atlanta essentially stripped away any legacy with their Olympic Stadium after the games but they are obviously open to stadium conversions for usage after the games as London's stadium plan shows.

My question is, how does the IOC define "legacy?" MUST a building be kept in the same state even after the Games?

I mean, come on, especially in the US, if a building is seen as obsolete and non-historically significant, it will definitely be knocked down or massively altered to suit a new use, whether it be years after an Olympics or months after.

Couldn't a legacy be defined in other terms apart from what buildings are left over that were specifically built for an Olympics? I've always considered one of the legacies of the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics was the money it made; that money went on to fund a lot of youth sports organizations, which continue to exist and it also encouraged more philanthropy for those organizations. And, I find it no coincidence that the Los Angeles Marathon was inaugurated in the year following the 1984 Summer Games.

[LA84]

dave199, on Aug 10 2006, 11:50 AM, said:

I agree. I'm not really aware but what are SF's major problems with their bid?

-Getting the stadium approved by the voters and built

-Getting the toxins cleaned up at Hunters Point and then getting redevelopment approved

-Distance between venues (50-60 miles)

-Danger of a voter initiative to occur at anytime between now and 2016 not to host the games or to thwart some aspect of preparing for them

-Public transportation issues

All of these can be addressed but they are issues.

[dave199]

LA84, on Aug 10 2006, 03:39 PM, said:

-Getting the stadium approved by the voters and built

-Getting the toxins cleaned up at Hunters Point and then getting redevelopment approved

-Distance between venues (50-60 miles)

-Danger of a voter initiative to occur at anytime between now and 2016 not to host the games or to thwart some aspect of preparing for them

-Public transportation issues

All of these can be addressed but they are issues.

Thanks for the run down.

It seems like both Chicago and SF have a lot of problems to resolve.

[LA84]

dave199, on Aug 10 2006, 01:13 PM, said:

Thanks for the run down.

It seems like both Chicago and SF have a lot of problems to resolve.

Sure. From an overall assessment, Los Angeles has a large advantage over both Chicago and San Francisco. Both cities are going to have to make a lot of major changes to their plans and have all their ducks in a row if they hope to become the USOC choice.

[dave199]

ChiIn2016, on Aug 10 2006, 04:51 PM, said:

Huge concerts and music festivals are held in Grant Park many times thoughout each summer on the lawn of Butler Field, usually free to the public. Speculation is that the reduced stadium, after the Olympic Games could be used as a venue for such events.

Millenium Park is not large enough for the annual Blues or Jazz festivals. There is currently an outdoor concert venue on the former site of Meigs Field boasts with sweeping views of the city and Lake Michigan that holds for profit concerts throughout the summer. Perhaps the revamped "temporary" stadium can be the future home to more of these concerts.

Sorry but it doesn't sound appealing having the "Temporary Olympic Stadium" turned into a concert venue. Is that the plan on bringing the Olympics to Chicago, have a lasting legacy for a concert venue with the stadium? If I was an IOC member and seen this I would be turned off. I don't know how Chicago officials are going to turn this fault around, it's such a difficult situation in my opinion.

[baron-pierreIV]

ejaycat, on Aug 10 2006, 07:17 PM, said:

My question is, how does the IOC define "legacy?" MUST a building be kept in the same state even after the Games?

I mean, come on, especially in the US, if a building is seen as obsolete and non-historically significant, it will definitely be knocked down or massively altered to suit a new use, whether it be years after an Olympics or months after.

Couldn't a legacy be defined in other terms apart from what buildings are left over that were specifically built for an Olympics? I've always considered one of the legacies of the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics was the money it made; that money went on to fund a lot of youth sports organizations, which continue to exist and it also encouraged more philanthropy for those organizations. And, I find it no coincidence that the Los Angeles Marathon was inaugurated in the year following the 1984 Summer Games.

That's pretty much, it, ejay. Brick-&-mortar monuments are fine; as is the great money generated by a Games, and then, like LA has done, put back into developing Olympic sports and "Olympism' among the youth of the host city. With the venues, the youth can be exposed to world-class surroundings of Olympic sports; with the money, it can buy the better coaches and equipment.

Edited by baron-pierreIV, 10 August 2006 - 05:11 PM.

[LA84]

dave199, on Aug 10 2006, 02:17 PM, said:

Sorry but it doesn't sound appealing having the "Temporary Olympic Stadium" turned into a concert venue. Is that the plan on bringing the Olympics to Chicago, have a lasting legacy for a concert venue with the stadium? If I was an IOC member and seen this I would be turned off. I don't know how Chicago officials are going to turn this fault around, it's such a difficult situation in my opinion.

I disagree. Atlanta, as an example, has Olympic Park as it's brick and mortar legacy of the games. Turner Field is certainly not - almost all indicators that it was the Olympic Stadium has pretty much been whiped away. While it does have several facilities left over the primary focus honoring the games is the park. And maybe the cauldron on the trellis out in the parking lot.

Chicago's plan could be brilliant if the temp stadium is executed in such a way that a portion of it remains as a permanent legacy in the new Olympic Park. Perhaps in the form of a peristyle or a collonade as an example.

A lot of interesting things can happen when thinking outside of the box.

[dave199]

LA84, on Aug 10 2006, 06:08 PM, said:

I disagree. Atlanta, as an example, has Olympic Park as it's brick and mortar legacy of the games. Turner Field is certainly not - almost all indicators that it was the Olympic Stadium has pretty much been whiped away. While it does have several facilities left over the primary focus honoring the games is the park. And maybe the cauldron on the trellis out in the parking lot.

Chicago's plan could be brilliant if the temp stadium is executed in such a way that a portion of it remains as a permanent legacy in the new Olympic Park. Perhaps in the form of a peristyle or a collonade as an example.

A lot of interesting things can happen when thinking outside of the box.

Yeah a lot of things can happen when thinking outside the box but do you actually believe that a plan something along the lines as you just mentioned stands a great chance at swaying the IOC in Chicago's favour? I know there's a lot of time left but I still yet have heard an excellent and viable stadium plan.

Since we are now using Atlanta as the example. Did the IOC like how they dealt with their Olympic Stadium post-Olympics? I haven't read or heard anything on this issue before and would love to know what kind of impression Atlanta left on the IOC post-Olympic games.

[baron-pierreIV]

dave199, on Aug 10 2006, 10:20 PM, said:

Yeah a lot of things can happen when thinking outside the box but do you actually believe that a plan something along the lines as you just mentioned stands a great chance at swaying the IOC in Chicago's favour? I know there's a lot of time left but I still yet have heard an excellent and viable stadium plan.

Since we are now using Atlanta as the example. Did the IOC like how they dealt with their Olympic Stadium post-Olympics? I haven't read or heard anything on this issue before and would love to know what kind of impression Atlanta left on the IOC post-Olympic games.

There were a few sourgrape traditionalists among the IOC members about Atlanta losing the T&F configuration. But I don't see what they had to cry about. They knew well in advance that after the Paralympics, half that stadium was gone and it would have a different configuration. I don't think it's the IOC's business anymore what happens after a host city has given them their party.