The Fading Legacy Of Montreal And Los Angeles And How That Is Going To Continue Affecting U.s. Summer Games Bids

[felixc]

A disappointing 4th place effort by Chicago to land 2016 has a lot of us scratching our heads. The bid had problems, but most do somewhere, and it seemed to that Chicago had done a wonderful job in showcasing their city and crossing all the t's and dotting the i's in preparation for today.

From a personal standpoint, I was a supporter of Chicago. My first visit to Chicago came after I had been working for several years on another American city's 2012 bid. I remember at the time being grateful that Chicago wasn't in the running because I think that it is unique among American cities in being set up almost perfectly for the Olympic Games. The line of park land, existing venues and transportation set along the waterfront in the shadow of a great skyline is just a superb setting for the Olympic Games. Adding to that termperate weather, a great airport and fantastic cultural facilities- I always thought that Chicago was the best shot for the U.S..

So, why did Chicago finish no better than a 2012 New York City bid that lost it's centerpiece stadium right before the vote?

It all comes down to Montreal.

When Los Angeles received (by some default) the 1984 Games - it's entire organization lived constantly under the shadow of Montreal. Excessive and expensive stadium construction and infrastructure were jettisoned in favor of existing facilities. The IOC went along - at the time they didn't have any other choice. The result was a fantastically successful Olympic Games that rejuvenated the Olympic Movement.

Out were the white elephants and in were existing and temporary facilities. Financial viabilty became a must.

Success followed success (even the criticized Atlanta Games were a financial success).

However, as time went on and more and more cities were now bidding for the Games, the IOC started to lose sight of Montreal. Bigger cities offered bigger stadiums and bigger infrastructure improvements. The IOC, in turn, took the bait and fell back into the mode they were in before Montreal. Bigger and more expensive. (which is just human nature - we all always want the newest and fanciest toys)

And this is the handicap for any American city. No American city, period, is ever going to offer the largess of spending and building that other countries are going to offer for the Olympic Games. No American Politician can go to his constituents and tell them their billions of their tax dollars is going to the Olympic Games. Any potential future summer American Olympic bid is going to have to be a Los Angeles/Atlanta hybrid with a mix of existing facilities/infrastructure and some new construction.

And that's not where the IOC is right now.

However, they may be there in the future. Who's to say there's never a Montreal again.

At some point, the financial constraints may have to come back.

At that point, then an American city will be viable again.

note - if this is better in the Chicago thread, please feel free to move. I went back and forth.

[4gamesandcounting]

And this is the handicap for any American city. No American city, period, is ever going to offer the largess of spending and building that other countries are going to offer for the Olympic Games

Well argued. But London has lots of temporary and existing facilities as part of our program - not quite as neat a fit as you might think. The fact is that the US is no longer the centre of the world economy - and therefore the IOC doesn't need to go knocking on the doore every 15 years or so.

[felixc]

Well argued. But London has lots of temporary and existing facilities as part of our program - not quite as neat a fit as you might think. The fact is that the US is no longer the centre of the world economy - and therefore the IOC doesn't need to go knocking on the doore every 15 years or so.

Yeah - I see your point.

But that logo...

It still gives me a headache !

Good luck London 2012 and Rio 2016.

[SamH]

Well argued. But London has lots of temporary and existing facilities as part of our program - not quite as neat a fit as you might think. The fact is that the US is no longer the centre of the world economy - and therefore the IOC doesn't need to go knocking on the doore every 15 years or so.

But neither therefore is Europe or Japan, so what is new.

But very interesting point Felixc thank you for it.

[ChiTown16]

Well argued. But London has lots of temporary and existing facilities as part of our program - not quite as neat a fit as you might think. The fact is that the US is no longer the centre of the world economy - and therefore the IOC doesn't need to go knocking on the doore every 15 years or so.

London 2012, though, is taking the - flatten and environmentally mitigate a huge brownfield and rebuild it with housing and Olympic facilities. Certainly not Chicago's approach. Chicago has a huge brownfield that we're trying to redevelop and that could probably fit 1.5 Olympic Parks + an Olympic Village but we chose to create a project that would leave facilities that were likely to have uses afterward.

For some reason, the IOC doesn't appreciate the source of the Athens concerns, the cost overruns in London and Vancouver, or why U.S. Games can be "ambitious but feasible" with their revenue projections. Chicago wasn't essentially building a new city like Sochi either.

The IOC is now in a significantly worse negotiating position with the USOC over revenue sharing of more than 1/2 of their global funding than they were a few hours ago (and conveniently forgot that major sponsors were behind the Chicago bid - for instance, Oak Brook, Illionis-based McDonald's; major sponsors and major NOCs in any country don't look at a 4th place exit very favorably) and no chance at all of assistance from the U.S. federal government or major U.S. institutions for the forseeable future - in the long term, this may very well lead to medal standings that resemble a Pan-Am Games rather than an Olympics. Honestly, I was hoping for a Madrid win in the end to demonstrate just how little regard the IOC had for the U.S.'s contribution.

Anyhow - their decision.

CHItown '16

[Athensfan]

Right on, Felix.

The IOC says they want to downsize and make the Games more manageable, but AGAIN they picked the most expensive bid and the one that will require the most construction. They are addicted to the grandeur.

I am not saying Rio should not have won, I'm just saying that the IOC says one thing and then does another.

[olympian]

Right on, Felix.

The IOC says they want to downsize and make the Games more manageable, but AGAIN they picked the most expensive bid and the one that will require the most construction. They are addicted to the grandeur.

I am not saying Rio should not have won, I'm just saying that the IOC says one thing and then does another.

very contradictory. Jacques Rogge is saying one thign but preaches another. I wonder how they will move assuming they are faced with another Montreal?

[MrCatra]

Nice read!

good post felix!

[Athensfan]

very contradictory. Jacques Rogge is saying one thign but preaches another. I wonder how they will move assuming they are faced with another Montreal?

I don't think Rio is going to be another Montreal. IF there is another Montreal, I can tell you exactly what the IOC will do. It's right there in Felix's post. They'll come back to the U.S. Outstanding bids may have no effect on them, but desperation will.

[Kenadian]

Montreal's bid back in 1970 was "modest". It wasn't until they secured the games that they went haywire with fantastic ideas of Parisian architects and retractable roofs and towering clam-shell stadia.

And there have been many Montreals since. The Olympics don't make profits. But they do churn local economies.

[mr.x]

very contradictory. Jacques Rogge is saying one thign but preaches another. I wonder how they will move assuming they are faced with another Montreal?

Jacques Rogges has strong beliefs about making the Olympics more sustainable, but he has little influence over the rest of the IOC. He has no choice but to support whatever decision the IOC delegates make.

[4gamesandcounting]

Jacques Rogges has strong beliefs about making the Olympics more sustainable, but he has little influence over the rest of the IOC. He has no choice but to support whatever decision the IOC delegates make.

True. He very sensibly doesn't vote.