Jump to content

The New American Race


LA84

Recommended Posts

The Gav said that he wanted the new Candlestick started before he runs for reelection.  He said that about 6 months ago and that is the last I have heard anything.

Ann Cribbs has said that SF is waiting to see what the USOC is planning and that is about it.

Frankly, I think a SF games would be a huge cluster #### and would make the problems of preparing for Athens seem like childs play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 213
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I've said it before many times on these threads, but I'm probably the only American on here who does NOT want to see an American Olympics for a very long time; I LIKE that there was a 52 year gap between the when the US did NOT host the Summer Olympics (between 1932 and 1984).  I'm hoping that will be the case again, or at least a 40 year gap.  

This is an opinion article from the Chicago Sun Times; I like the guy's attitude:

Hosting Games an Olympic-sized headache

March 5, 2006

BY RICK TELANDER SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

If you wonder what the world will be like in 2016, you're not the only one. By then, I fear, Mayor Daley will have installed video cameras in all Cook County bedrooms and lunchboxes. For as he eagerly has reminded his sheep- like constituency, "Cameras solve crimes.''

So 10 years from now, as we trudge crime-free and blank-eyed into 2016, will we really want to host the Summer Olympics?

I think not. For many reasons.

First, take it from one who has been to five of the wingdings, starting with the Los Angeles Games in 1984: The Olympics are a pain in the butt for the host citizens to present.

For weeks, you can't get around your own town because of roadblocks, newly created one-way streets, parking zones, shuttle pickup and drop-off areas and -- the most recent and worst bugaboo of all -- security concerns.

Back in 1984, officials were aware of the terrorism that had occurred at the Munich Games in 1972. But the United States still was like an island in those days, impervious to virtually any terrorist attacks except, perhaps, nuclear missiles. Which would not be coming from the parking lot.

Los Angeles was still navigable in the year that George Orwell made famous.

But Chicago in 2016? Let me just say that if Soldier Field, the United Center, the UIC Pavilion, the Horizon, Wrigley Field and U.S. Cellular Field were venues for the Chicago Games -- and they would be -- you could kiss your commute goodbye.

Too many problems

Security issues have grown exponentially since the bombing at the Atlanta Games in 1996 and the skyjacking horrors of 9/11, and I can tell you I never saw so many cement barriers and metal fences as I did at the Salt Lake City Games in 2002.

At the Athens Games in 2004, it seemed that maybe half the population of the city avoided the Olympic aggravation entirely by boating to the Greek islands for the summer.

Indeed, Wisconsin just might benefit the most from a successful Chicago bid.

Then there is the influx of foreign visitors. That's nice for tourism folks, but Chicago has lots of tourists anyway.

And if you want to feel like a stranger in your own land, watch 10,000 Europeans wandering our streets, waving their little flags and staggering out of pubs.

Chicago is not a drab, waterless accident of fate -- such as Atlanta -- and we don't need to con people into stopping by.

Atlanta. My God, what a hideous Games that outpost put on.

From the bus drivers imported from Alabama to the T-shirt stands from hell to the death-wish Waffle House diet for the cholesterol-challenged, that ugly town showed the Olympics can't bring you anything you don't already have.

Then there is the preparation, which starts years before the big event. Cement poured, sidewalks torn up, traffic snarled, small businesses ruined, delays, anger, ennui.

And taxes. All the Olympic cities I have visited have leftover structures they don't need and somebody, usually common citizens, stuck with piles of debt.

Word is Athens' debt keeps climbing. Montreal still owes a lot from hosting the Games in 1976.

Beijing, which will host the Games in 2008, needs the attention, regardless of the cost. China has 1.3 billion people ready to burst into the 21st century after a millennium or so of living in seclusion and subservience.

Watching it on TV just as good

It's not like things are swell in China even now, but the world will get to see Tiananmen Square as someplace other than the spot where defenseless students attempted to place flowers in the guns of Red Army tanks.

But us? Why do we need to build an 80,000-seat stadium to host the main Olympic ceremonies if NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue won't give us a second team to play there once the five-ringed circus has left town? And he won't give us one.

If anything bad happens at the Olympics, that is what people will remember. Even if nothing tragic happens, you can get a bad hangover from the negative vibes.

Take Seoul and its Games in 1988. You haven't been rushing off to that town for sauteed puppy, have you?

Most of all, the Games are now fully and completely a made-for-TV production. You think anybody on the Turin slopes or Athens boulevards saw anything but quick sketches as the downhill skiers and marathoners rushed by?

It's a little-known secret that some journalists at the sites watch most of the Olympic events they are covering on the TV monitors in the media centers.

As they could do from their living-room couches back home.

As you can do in 2016.

If the Olympics are in Brazil.

Hosting Games an Olympic-sized headache

-------------------------------------------------------

He's wrong, though, in that as everyone knows, L.A. was not left with piles of debt nor was it left with any leftover structures it didn't need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With baseball gone, could PacBell/SBC/AT&T Park be used for anything?  Could the triathlon start from Alcatraz?  Where would/could an Olympic Village be located?  If equestrian in Monterey and rowing in Sacramento are to be moved elsewhere, where could they go?

dmfcsf, u live in the Bay Area, if you read the papers you'll know what's up when it's up.  

As for the USOC's stand and announcement, I imagine that'll come around May or June.  That ought to give the handful of cities enough time to pull their act together.

As for the new Candlestick, LA84 already answered that.  As for AT&TPark, who knows, maybe it'll host field hockey (altho that's played on a smoother artifical turf).  Maybe, it won't even be used.  

As for the rest, stay tuned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact there hasn't been much yet indicates, as they've said, that either SF is biding its time or just has no intentions of trying this time around.

Yeah, this sort of gets to the heart of my curiosity.  Which is it?  Is SF biding its time or are they not going to try?

I believe SF intends to bid if the USOC decides to forward a bid for 2016 as Mayor Gavin Newsom has anounced before the USOC haulted all activities for potential bid cities. SF, along with a handful of other cities were prepared to declare their intentions of bidding until Peter Ueberroth and the USOC decided they were unsure about a 2016 bid. The USOC has been very unpredictable ever since New York lost so I think SF is waiting for the USOC to figure out it's plans once and for all.

My take on all the hoopla between NY and Chicago is quite obvious. NY was the last representative so it definitely has a major advantage over all other cities. NY hasn't expressed officially it intends to bid but the speculation is there and in case the city does bid, they're undoubtedly going to be the front runner. Chicago has been getting a lot of buzz due to being the newcomer that never showed interest in the recent past but has surprised everyone with their 180 degree decision to welcome the possibility of a bid and now caries the role of being the city with the biggest potential to overtake NY (which belonged to SF in 2012). Philly, also a newcomer has been getting some buzz.

Holdover cities such as SF, DC, LA and Houston are all in the same 'stand and wait' situation. The only thing holding back these cities is the USOC decision whether or not to pursue a 2016 bid and in what form the bid process will take. Once (or if) the USOC opens the floodgates, expect an all out "my city is better than yours" slugfest once again. If SF can learn from it's mistakes in 2012 and recreate a bid that's compact and centered in SF with Berkeley and Oakland as satelite locales, it should be in the elite group of cities but expect a David vs Goliath battle once again for SF except this time there might be 2 Goliaths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact there hasn't been much yet indicates, as they've said, that either SF is biding its time or just has no intentions of trying this time around.

Yeah, this sort of gets to the heart of my curiosity.  Which is it?  Is SF biding its time or are they not going to try?

I believe SF intends to bid if the USOC decides to forward a bid for 2016 as Mayor Gavin Newsom has anounced before the USOC haulted all activities for potential bid cities. SF, along with a handful of other cities were prepared to declare their intentions of bidding until Peter Ueberroth and the USOC decided they were unsure about a 2016 bid. The USOC has been very unpredictable ever since New York lost so I think SF is waiting for the USOC to figure out it's plans once and for all.

My take on all the hoopla between NY and Chicago is quite obvious. NY was the last representative so it definitely has a major advantage over all other cities. NY hasn't expressed officially it intends to bid but the speculation is there and in case the city does bid, they're undoubtedly going to be the front runner. Chicago has been getting a lot of buzz due to being the newcomer that never showed interest in the recent past but has surprised everyone with their 180 degree decision to welcome the possibility of a bid and now caries the role of being the city with the biggest potential to overtake NY (which belonged to SF in 2012). Philly, also a newcomer has been getting some buzz.

Holdover cities such as SF, DC, LA and Houston are all in the same 'stand and wait' situation. The only thing holding back these cities is the USOC decision whether or not to pursue a 2016 bid and in what form the bid process will take. Once (or if) the USOC opens the floodgates, expect an all out "my city is better than yours" slugfest once again. If SF can learn from it's mistakes in 2012 and recreate a bid that's compact and centered in SF with Berkeley and Oakland as satelite locales, it should be in the elite group of cities but expect a David vs Goliath battle once again for SF except this time there might be 2 Goliaths.

Very well said.

Hit the nails on the head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As nice as it would be to have an Olympics literally in my own back yard, a San Francisco bid is a bad idea and would make the Athens and Atlanta experiences look like they were highly organized and trouble free.    

Let's see - I made the mistake of driving in today.  2 hours to go 27 miles.  :glare: Then I got caught again at the Bay Bridge which, if we are lucky, will be done by 2010, 21 years after being damaged by Lorma Prieta.  Then I drove down the Embaracadaro which took 11 years to tear down the Embarcadaro Freeway after it was damaged by Lorma Prieta.  Then I drive past all the new high rises going up SOMA which, thanks to that idiot Chris Daly, will essentially not have any additional parking for downtown.  

Yea - SF is really on the ball as far as tearing down condemed areas and building new facilities.  Just the type of environment to build new facilities for an Olympics - NOT.  

We are also talking about a city where everyone was all up in arms because they had a ski jumping competition off Filmore last summer.  Imagine how everyone would squawk if the Olympics arrived in town!  Not to mention all the bleeding heart activists who I am sure would find some way to get a ballot initiative to stop SF from hosting the Olympics.  

The only way a SF Olympics would work is if the majority of the venues were in Oakland and Berkely.

Sorry, but as someone who has lived in San Francisco and Chicago and have spent an enormous amount of time working out of New York, Chicago is the best bet, both from a logistics standpoint and the ability to get things done, to host a smooth 2016.  :unclesam:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holdover cities such as SF, DC, LA and Houston are all in the same 'stand and wait' situation. The only thing holding back these cities is the USOC decision whether or not to pursue a 2016 bid and in what form the bid process will take. Once (or if) the USOC opens the floodgates, expect an all out "my city is better than yours" slugfest once again.

This is precisely what the USOC is trying to avoid -- an all-out confrontation and waste of resources, when there can only be 1 winner, and when the dust has settled, make them look like an irresponsible organization which they are trying not to be.  

Except for Chicago and Philly, it's not like the other wannabee cities all of a sudden have 20 brand-new venues sprung overnight.  Except for 2 or 3 new venues amongst the major candidates (except New York DOES seem to have a good half-dozen new venues --I get bleary-eyed reading NYC2016's llloooonnnngggg posts), it's still going to be the same deck of cards the USOC has seen 2-3 year ago.  

Having said that, I think the USOC might pick the city informally -- i.e., they already know the strengths and weaknesses of each city, they know what a winning bid requires.  So they just talk to and size up each city.  Why subject the cities to another round of an 'open slugest,' as you say by-the-bay (BTW, where's "moonlight"?   :laughlong: -- or is that song too old?) when it'll probably end up with City #1 or #2 all along.  So just handpick the candidate.  Skip the confrontation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holdover cities such as SF, DC, LA and Houston are all in the same 'stand and wait' situation. The only thing holding back these cities is the USOC decision whether or not to pursue a 2016 bid and in what form the bid process will take. Once (or if) the USOC opens the floodgates, expect an all out "my city is better than yours" slugfest once again.

This is precisely what the USOC is trying to avoid -- an all-out confrontation and waste of resources, when there can only be 1 winner, and when the dust has settled, make them look like an irresponsible organization which they are trying not to be.  

I was referring more about the forumers going at it, although some Mayors did participate in a bit of trash talk during USOC visits and interviews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was referring more about the forumers going at it, although some Mayors did participate in a bit of trash talk during USOC visits and interviews.

Read a few of the older threads.  The unrealistic bids are shut down quickly because they are soooooooooo way out of the ballpark and therefore are more irritating if nothing else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting waste of webspace. :D

Not much on San Diego's plan as to "who, what, when, where"

I doubt very much that the IOC will allow a binational Olympic bid, and most of all, the USOC isn,t going to go for something like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting waste of webspace. :D

Not much on San Diego's plan as to "who, what, when, where"

I doubt very much that the IOC will allow a binational Olympic bid, and most of all, the USOC isn,t going to go for something like this.

It also mentions the Pan Am Games?  Would they be willing to accept a bi-national bid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmm, now it's starting to make sense to me why Daley keeps talking about having venues in South Bend, Champaign, etc.  

The mayor of Rockford, Illinois (70 miles from Chicago) gave his state of the city speech a few days ago and sheds a little light on what Chicago may be planning for 2016:

Why does Mayor Daley want the Olympics to come to Chicago? International recognition? Definitely. Economic infusion? Absolutely. But the real win with a 2016 Olympics is the chance to develop a world-class infrastructure that enables a city not only to compete for an Olympics, but also to compete every day. The opportunity is to build a world-class rail infrastructure where Chicago is a hub connecting cities like Rockford, South Bend and Champaign-Urbana.

We must partner with Chicago to do this and we must make sure our own Illinois Department of Transportation puts us in their planning future.

Looks as tho there may have been some talks with some of the outlying cities about extending Metra out further, which a lot of them and Chicago to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmm, now it's starting to make sense to me why Daley keeps talking about having venues in South Bend, Champaign, etc.  

The mayor of Rockford, Illinois (70 miles from Chicago) gave his state of the city speech a few days ago and sheds a little light on what Chicago may be planning for 2016:

Why does Mayor Daley want the Olympics to come to Chicago? International recognition? Definitely. Economic infusion? Absolutely. But the real win with a 2016 Olympics is the chance to develop a world-class infrastructure that enables a city not only to compete for an Olympics, but also to compete every day. The opportunity is to build a world-class rail infrastructure where Chicago is a hub connecting cities like Rockford, South Bend and Champaign-Urbana.

We must partner with Chicago to do this and we must make sure our own Illinois Department of Transportation puts us in their planning future.

Looks as tho there may have been some talks with some of the outlying cities about extending Metra out further, which a lot of them and Chicago to do.

What I think the Mayor of Rockford did was confirming Daley's statements and proposals of having a transportation infrastructure that will be beneficial for the region. Daley stated this the same time when he proposed having venues, or the main Olympic Stadium in significantly far places in Illinois, Indiana or Wisconsin.

I think, having major venues specially the Main Olympic Stadium in such far flung places won't fly with the USOC or IOC. But overall, it really makes sense in an economic perspective and will equate positive economic effects for the region. :)

I remember during the 2012 presentations, Moscow was getting grilled with questions on a venue 60 miles away from the Olympic Village.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmm, now it's starting to make sense to me why Daley keeps talking about having venues in South Bend, Champaign, etc.  

The mayor of Rockford, Illinois (70 miles from Chicago) gave his state of the city speech a few days ago and sheds a little light on what Chicago may be planning for 2016:

Why does Mayor Daley want the Olympics to come to Chicago? International recognition? Definitely. Economic infusion? Absolutely. But the real win with a 2016 Olympics is the chance to develop a world-class infrastructure that enables a city not only to compete for an Olympics, but also to compete every day. The opportunity is to build a world-class rail infrastructure where Chicago is a hub connecting cities like Rockford, South Bend and Champaign-Urbana.

We must partner with Chicago to do this and we must make sure our own Illinois Department of Transportation puts us in their planning future.

Looks as tho there may have been some talks with some of the outlying cities about extending Metra out further, which a lot of them and Chicago to do.

What I think the Mayor of Rockford did was confirming Daley's statements and proposals of having a transportation infrastructure that will be beneficial for the region. Daley stated this the same time when he proposed having venues, or the main Olympic Stadium in significantly far places in Illinois, Indiana or Wisconsin.

I think, having major venues specially the Main Olympic Stadium in such far flung places won't fly with the USOC or IOC. But overall, it really makes sense in an economic perspective and will equate positive economic effects for the region. :)

I remember during the 2012 presentations, Moscow was getting grilled with questions on a venue 60 miles away from the Olympic Village.

Obviously the main venues are not going to be in South Bend, Champaign or Rockford.  However, as with many past Olympics, there will be satellite sites for soccer, equestrian and a few other minor sports.  

This is a very good idea to expand Metra, which has been talked about for years, as well as getting support from the outlying areas to start getting statewide backing for 2016.  :unclesam:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you nailed it right there, as to why Daley is discussing spread out venues.  Support in the Chicago area has been good from what I can tell, but the rest of the state seems less than thrilled.  By finding a way to draw them in, as well as provide economic benefits for a wider population base, it will be an easier sell to get the entire state behind the idea.

One thing Daley knows is how to be crafty in getting people to support his ideas.  He might be shady but he's a smart operator and can get it done when he decides it's worth doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you nailed it right there, as to why Daley is discussing spread out venues.  Support in the Chicago area has been good from what I can tell, but the rest of the state seems less than thrilled.  By finding a way to draw them in, as well as provide economic benefits for a wider population base, it will be an easier sell to get the entire state behind the idea.

One thing Daley knows is how to be crafty in getting people to support his ideas.  He might be shady but he's a smart operator and can get it done when he decides it's worth doing.

A lot of the state is excited by Chicago's bid.  I'm from the Champaign area originally and a lot of people are aware that Chicago is thinking about 2016 and seem to be receptive to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously the main venues are not going to be in South Bend, Champaign or Rockford.  However, as with many past Olympics, there will be satellite sites for soccer, equestrian and a few other minor sports.

I actually read an article somewhere on a Chicago newspaper that he suggested the main olympic stadium to be in one of those places. Satellite venues are fine, but IMO, not the main Olympic Stadium with the athletics competition in it. I guess one of the problems Chicago has is the financing of the main olympic stadium and it has to be in the city, but who's going to pay for it? A 2nd NFL team is out of the question in the next year or so. Most expensive stadium in the USA, Soldier Field, was just rebuilt, and I don't think Chicagoans will accept another tax increase for retrofitting the just build an olympic stadium.

However, it's a clever idea to do that in order to get more support from other parts of the State.

In New York, as long as most of the venues will be in the city and won't be a burden to taxpayers, most New Yorkers do want the games. In fact, more than 75% approve of it if no tax money or just a part of it will be used for the venues and organization of the games. And the same number wants the city to pursue the 2016 games with Queens as the centerpiece of the bid, not Manhattan. Which will be the case now when NYC announces its intentions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmm, now it's starting to make sense to me why Daley keeps talking about having venues in South Bend, Champaign, etc.  

The mayor of Rockford, Illinois (70 miles from Chicago) gave his state of the city speech a few days ago and sheds a little light on what Chicago may be planning for 2016:

Why does Mayor Daley want the Olympics to come to Chicago? International recognition? Definitely. Economic infusion? Absolutely. But the real win with a 2016 Olympics is the chance to develop a world-class infrastructure that enables a city not only to compete for an Olympics, but also to compete every day. The opportunity is to build a world-class rail infrastructure where Chicago is a hub connecting cities like Rockford, South Bend and Champaign-Urbana.

We must partner with Chicago to do this and we must make sure our own Illinois Department of Transportation puts us in their planning future.

Looks as tho there may have been some talks with some of the outlying cities about extending Metra out further, which a lot of them and Chicago to do.

What I think the Mayor of Rockford did was confirming Daley's statements and proposals of having a transportation infrastructure that will be beneficial for the region. Daley stated this the same time when he proposed having venues, or the main Olympic Stadium in significantly far places in Illinois, Indiana or Wisconsin.

I think, having major venues specially the Main Olympic Stadium in such far flung places won't fly with the USOC or IOC. But overall, it really makes sense in an economic perspective and will equate positive economic effects for the region. :)

I remember during the 2012 presentations, Moscow was getting grilled with questions on a venue 60 miles away from the Olympic Village.

Obviously the main venues are not going to be in South Bend, Champaign or Rockford.  However, as with many past Olympics, there will be satellite sites for soccer, equestrian and a few other minor sports.  

This is a very good idea to expand Metra, which has been talked about for years, as well as getting support from the outlying areas to start getting statewide backing for 2016.  :unclesam:

Like LA84 had said before, Daley won't be stupid enough to have major venues located outside Chicagoland, it would probable be like

Soccer:

Madison

Champaign or Green Bay

St.Louis

South Bend

Detroit

Washington D.C

Sailing:

Milwaukee, to please Wisconsin.

Rowing Flatwater:

Lake Geneva

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmm, now it's starting to make sense to me why Daley keeps talking about having venues in South Bend, Champaign, etc.  

The mayor of Rockford, Illinois (70 miles from Chicago) gave his state of the city speech a few days ago and sheds a little light on what Chicago may be planning for 2016:

Why does Mayor Daley want the Olympics to come to Chicago? International recognition? Definitely. Economic infusion? Absolutely. But the real win with a 2016 Olympics is the chance to develop a world-class infrastructure that enables a city not only to compete for an Olympics, but also to compete every day. The opportunity is to build a world-class rail infrastructure where Chicago is a hub connecting cities like Rockford, South Bend and Champaign-Urbana.

We must partner with Chicago to do this and we must make sure our own Illinois Department of Transportation puts us in their planning future.

Looks as tho there may have been some talks with some of the outlying cities about extending Metra out further, which a lot of them and Chicago to do.

What I think the Mayor of Rockford did was confirming Daley's statements and proposals of having a transportation infrastructure that will be beneficial for the region. Daley stated this the same time when he proposed having venues, or the main Olympic Stadium in significantly far places in Illinois, Indiana or Wisconsin.

I think, having major venues specially the Main Olympic Stadium in such far flung places won't fly with the USOC or IOC. But overall, it really makes sense in an economic perspective and will equate positive economic effects for the region. :)

I remember during the 2012 presentations, Moscow was getting grilled with questions on a venue 60 miles away from the Olympic Village.

Obviously the main venues are not going to be in South Bend, Champaign or Rockford.  However, as with many past Olympics, there will be satellite sites for soccer, equestrian and a few other minor sports.  

This is a very good idea to expand Metra, which has been talked about for years, as well as getting support from the outlying areas to start getting statewide backing for 2016.  :unclesam:

Like LA84 had said before, Daley won't be stupid enough to have major venues located outside Chicagoland, it would probable be like

Soccer:

Madison

Champaign or Green Bay

St.Louis

South Bend

Detroit

Washington D.C

Sailing:

Milwaukee, to please Wisconsin.

Rowing Flatwater:

Lake Geneva

He did propose to have those far flung facilities for major olympic venues and he better change his mind on that one. But even though he won't use them for major olympic venues and just use them as soccer venues, he will still have problems to get a site for a main olympic stadium and create a sports park within or near city limits. I'm just not hearing any good news about Chicago's economy right now and Chicago being the highest taxed city won't help that much either. I don't think Chicagoans will accept more tax increases to fund Daley's proposals.

Unless, he changes his first statement regarding those venues, Chicago having to use several cities 70 miles or so from the city center for major olympic venues won't fly with the USOC or the IOC. IMO, if they at least bring it at around 10-20 mile radius, they'll be in great position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmm, now it's starting to make sense to me why Daley keeps talking about having venues in South Bend, Champaign, etc.  

The mayor of Rockford, Illinois (70 miles from Chicago) gave his state of the city speech a few days ago and sheds a little light on what Chicago may be planning for 2016:

Why does Mayor Daley want the Olympics to come to Chicago? International recognition? Definitely. Economic infusion? Absolutely. But the real win with a 2016 Olympics is the chance to develop a world-class infrastructure that enables a city not only to compete for an Olympics, but also to compete every day. The opportunity is to build a world-class rail infrastructure where Chicago is a hub connecting cities like Rockford, South Bend and Champaign-Urbana.

We must partner with Chicago to do this and we must make sure our own Illinois Department of Transportation puts us in their planning future.

Looks as tho there may have been some talks with some of the outlying cities about extending Metra out further, which a lot of them and Chicago to do.

What I think the Mayor of Rockford did was confirming Daley's statements and proposals of having a transportation infrastructure that will be beneficial for the region. Daley stated this the same time when he proposed having venues, or the main Olympic Stadium in significantly far places in Illinois, Indiana or Wisconsin.

I think, having major venues specially the Main Olympic Stadium in such far flung places won't fly with the USOC or IOC. But overall, it really makes sense in an economic perspective and will equate positive economic effects for the region. :)

I remember during the 2012 presentations, Moscow was getting grilled with questions on a venue 60 miles away from the Olympic Village.

Obviously the main venues are not going to be in South Bend, Champaign or Rockford.  However, as with many past Olympics, there will be satellite sites for soccer, equestrian and a few other minor sports.  

This is a very good idea to expand Metra, which has been talked about for years, as well as getting support from the outlying areas to start getting statewide backing for 2016.  :unclesam:

Like LA84 had said before, Daley won't be stupid enough to have major venues located outside Chicagoland, it would probable be like

Soccer:

Madison

Champaign or Green Bay

St.Louis

South Bend

Detroit

Washington D.C

Sailing:

Milwaukee, to please Wisconsin.

Rowing Flatwater:

Lake Geneva

He did propose to have those far flung facilities for major olympic venues and he better change his mind on that one. But even though he won't use them for major olympic venues and just use them as soccer venues, he will still have problems to get a site for a main olympic stadium and create a sports park within or near city limits. I'm just not hearing any good news about Chicago's economy right now and Chicago being the highest taxed city won't help that much either. I don't think Chicagoans will accept more tax increases to fund Daley's proposals.

Unless, he changes his first statement regarding those venues, Chicago having to use several cities 70 miles or so from the city center for major olympic venues won't fly with the USOC or the IOC. IMO, if they at least bring it at around 10-20 mile radius, they'll be in great position.

I have heard from the Tribune and other papers, that Daley is thinking of making the Olympic Stadium in Cicero Racetrack, which is about 3 miles from downtown. or build a brand new Olympic Stadium attached to McCormick Place, about 1/2 mile south of the loop, and after the games convert the stadium into convention space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard from the Tribune and other papers, that Daley is thinking of making the Olympic Stadium in Cicero Racetrack, which is about 3 miles from downtown. or build a brand new Olympic Stadium attached to McCormick Place, about 1/2 mile south of the loop, and after the games convert the stadium into convention space.

That's facility is in a great location, in between I-290 and I-55. :)

But isn't it the Hawthorne Race Course in Cicero, IL owned by an individual, not by the City or State? How are they going to work that out? Where would they get the money to buy the facility? And if they'll buy if from Tom Carey with all the billion dollar deficits the City and State will incur this year? Or would they use "eminent domain" to grab it from the owner?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...