Chicago 2016

[ThrillosAG]

Well,if "LA" can win because it has 2 syllables,then we will have to include "Philly" as well ,won't we??

You're trying to reason with someone who is unreasonable. According to Mo Rush, Philly is "redheaded stepchild" of the United States and because of that is unworthy of hosting the Olympics.

[Mainad]

You're trying to reason with someone who is unreasonable. According to Mo Rush, Philly is "redheaded stepchild" of the United States and because of that is unworthy of hosting the Olympics.

A stepchild? Philadelphia is where the United States began back in 1776 wasn't it?

Besides it would be the first 5-syllable city to host a Summer Olympics.That should help swing it the support of those IOC members who are into novelty record-breaking!!

[baron-pierreIV]

Besides it would be the first 5-syllable city to host a Summer Olympics.That should help swing it the support of those IOC members who are into novelty record-breaking!!

Now PyongChangBangLangKangDangMang will have to beat "Garmisch-Partenkirchen."

[ThrillosAG]

A stepchild? Philadelphia is where the United States began back in 1776 wasn't it?

Besides it would be the first 5-syllable city to host a Summer Olympics.That should help swing it the support of those IOC members who are into novelty record-breaking!!

Yeah Philadelphia is birthplace of the nation and the home of the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution but my earlier response was full of sarcasm hence the smiley face at the end.

[LA84]

A stepchild? Philadelphia is where the United States began back in 1776 wasn't it?

Yes but don't try and tell someone from Boston that - you'll get an earful!

Anyway - back to topic:

There was an article in the Tribune about Chicago creating a "Green Olympics." I won't post the whole thing because it was a long article, but here is a tidbit about what is going on with the stadium situation:

To date, discussion on Chicago's need to construct a stadium holding 80,000 people for Olympic track and field events has focused on a permanent facility or one that could be turned into another use, such as housing, after the Games. Enquist and his colleagues at Skidmore are exploring another way: a high-quality temporary facility that could be built, then taken apart.

At first, "high-quality" and "temporary facility" sound incompatible, like "pennant-winning" and "Cubs." But Chicago has a history of building drop-dead temporary cities, none more notable than Burnham's White City. And in recent years, architects such as Japan's Shigeru Ban have created striking architecture out of such modest materials as cardboard tubes.

"It would be a kit of parts," Enquist said, explaining that the stadium would likely be made of off-the-shelf steel components "We could find a way to integrate standard [construction] systems with some innovative wrapping to make it a very exciting stadium."

A temporary stadium, he maintains, would be far less expensive than a "permanent big box" with a price tag of $600 million to $1 billion, though he won't specify the cost. It also would take pressure off Daley to get a second Chicago National Football League franchise to use the stadium when the Games were finished.

It all sounds inherently green -- a low-cost stadium that would be the very opposite of a white elephant.

I had heard that Skidmore was working on a design but this is the first confirmation of that. The other rumors I have heard is that a temp stadium might be build around McCormick Place. Which makes sense as they are set to expand it again in the near future.

I had also heard that the land at the old Meigs Field is also being considered but I don't think it is big enough

[baron-pierreIV]

That sounds good, LA. So (i) someone is finally listening that we need a 'brand-new' facility for that damned 2-week party; and (ii) that it has to have that wow! factor which wakes up all those old corpses at the IOC.

I'm wondering though, what can be considered 'temporary' holding 60,000 people in the upper reaches + some sort of roofing and rigging for lights, etc.? What about all the plumbing for drinking water and toilets? What? It's going to be all Port-a-Potties? Can u imagine the stench for 2 weeks in the summer?

What you've posted means though that it's going to be a 1-season thingy and therefore the Chicago bid won't include a 2011 IAAF Championship component which is what the USOC wanted to nail down a US victory with (or unless they intend to bid for 2011 with Ryan Field?).

Structurally, I don't think a 'temporary' stadium would work. Remember, it's not only what you see on the outside. There's quite a bit that also goes on in the inner bowels of an Olympic Stadium, and especially with regard to Ceremonies.

And I would think, and again IMHO, a certain bloc at the IOC would still prefer to see something permanent. Whether the host has to sell their first-born to pay for it or not, they don't care.

BTW, did you see my note re going to Candlestick yesterday? It's going to be plenty tight with a new 49er/Olympic Stadium, and a 2nd practice track, even if that one might also be just 'temporary.' Also, it was AWFULLY, AWFULLY windy there. They're going to have to design something that will thwart the winds from the Bay because those will affect events like the javelin throw and/or be a factor in 'wind-aided' races. Why, the Olympic flame may even be snuffed out a few times?

Seeing what Chicago is exploring (which is NOT a bad thing in and of itself, but still too exploratory at this stage) and (what I see as) the problematic, physical layout of a SF location, I have this feeling that Philly can probably put it all together.

[LA84]

From a logistics standpoint, I see Philadelphia and Los Angeles as huge threats. They have the land, they have the want, they have a lot going for them.

But if Chicago or San Francisco can pull out just enough to satisfy the IOC then one of them will get it.

Why? San Francisco already has the international recognition and outside of New York, is one of the biggest European vacation draws in the U.S. Go down on Market St. sometime - half of what you hear is German, English and French.

That and not only has Candlestick already been approved, but the A's are thiiiissss close to relocating to Fremont. If Oakland thinks they are losing the A's and there is an Olympics in the Horizon, a new stadium, to Al Davis' specifications is going up in Oakland. Couple that with PG&E finally signing over Hunter's Point this week and a move to revitalize it and Bayview and there is the perfect recipe for a 2016 games.

Chicago - it's the new Barcelona. A gorgeous city that has reinvented itself. Nothing more needs to be said about that situation.

I totally think it will come down to SF or Chicago. Although Philly could pull out a hat trick - we'll see.

BTW - haven't forgotten about lunch. A lot going on - I will fill you in. But I have a HUGE interview tomorrow.

[baron-pierreIV]

That and not only has Candlestick already been approved, but the A's are thiiiissss close to relocating to Fremont. If Oakland thinks they are losing the A's and there is an Olympics in the Horizon, a new stadium, to Al Davis' specifications is going up in Oakland. Couple that with PG&E finally signing over Hunter's Point this week and a move to revitalize it and Bayview and there is the perfect recipe for a 2016 games.

I don't think Al Davis & the A's are going to be a factor:

1. If the O-Village will be at Hunter's Point-Bayview, then Candlestick WILL have to be Olympic Stadium. Otherwise, if it were in Oakland, then you're going to have that same Queens-Manhattan West Side disparity which was problematic for the NYC bid.

2. Davis optioned the return of the Earhtquakes to the Bay Area. But for that, I hear they want to stay close to the Earthquakes' old fan base in the San Jose area.

3. If baseball doesn't return, then what good might a new A's field in Fremont be? (Well, other than maybe my property will appreciate.) It would just mean 1 extra venue, like PacBell Park, which will have to be retrofitted for something else. Or the baseball season would be in full swing already, so maybe the SF Giants might share that while PacBell Park might be used for the SF Games?

4. The present As-Raiders Stadium in Oakland was to be the main soccer venue in the SF2012 plan. I think that will stay the same -- so whether the A's stay or leave has no impact on a new SF2016 plan.

So our SF bid really will not improve significantly by any of the A's future moves.

[Athensfan]

IF Chicago can come up with a viable stadium option, they will be the town to beat. If Philly can pull it together, they would be a close runner-up. Los Angeles is going to have to fight very hard against the "been-there-done-that" sentiment. (Plus, the newly approved plans to refurbish Coliseum only call for 68,000 seats -- so I'm not totally certain that LA doesn't have some stadium glitches of their own.) Personally, I have trouble imagining San Francisco or Houston will be able to pull it off. There are a lot of big IF's -- that's why I think it's still very possible that the US won't bid for 2016.

As for a "temporary stadium", I agree with Baron that a temporary structure isn't going to cut it. Other venues -- go for it, but not the "centerpiece of the Games" as it's often called. I also don't see how it helps to stage the athletics and the ceremonies at two different venues -- you still have to reach minimum seating capacity in both venues. It seems to me the only possible way to minimize the threat of a white elephant is to follow in London's footsteps and go with a plan that would allow the seating to be reduced after the Games. Even with this scenario -- what does that buy Chicago? Just a smaller athletics stadium whose use would be undetermined. I hate to say it, but it really does seem like Chicago's best bet is wooing another NFL team.

[ejaycat]

Could someone define "international appeal"/"international recognition?"

Many here apply those terms to San Francisco; yes, SF is a big tourist trap, but so are plenty of other American cities. Why does SF seem to get that designation among Gamesbids members? Los Angeles is the second most visited city in the United States, after New York City. So why does SF supposedly have that "international appeal?"

In my opinion, Chicago has more "international recognition" than SF; it seems to me that when people outside the US think of Chicago, they think of it as the quintissential big American city: skyscrapers, very urban environments, etc. People's opinions of Chicago seem to be on par with people's opinions about NYC (outside the US).

Outside the US, when people think of San Francisco, they just think of the big orange bridge and the cable cars (which many mistakenly call trams, trolleys or streetcars). Many on Gamesbids also say that SF is "very European." My question is: HOW?? If anything I think SF is a VERY American city, complete with skyscrapers and even a gridiron street pattern, which is very un-European.

Plus, the newly approved plans to refurbish Coliseum only call for 68,000 seats -- so I'm not totally certain that LA doesn't have some stadium glitches of their own.

\

Yes, the Coliseum redo would call for 68,000 seats, but it would also have the capability to be expanded to 80,000 seats, for superbowls, major USC football games (ie., USC vs. UCLA), AND a possible hosting of another Olympics.

However, I don't think LA is the front runner for hosting an Olympics any time soon. There's too much of that "been there, done that" feeling among USOC and IOC members, I'm sure.

I wouldn't be surprised if the US doesn't bid for 2016 either. In fact I'm hoping that the US doesn't.

[Guardian]

a 2011 IAAF Championship component which is what the USOC wanted to nail down a US victory with...

So, baron, has the USATF chosen a city yet to bid for the 2011 IAAF World Athletics Championship? I haven't gone to the IAAF website, but it did state that the USA may put a bid forward.

[Koolshundle]

IF Chicago can come up with a viable stadium option, they will be the town to beat. If Philly can pull it together, they would be a close runner-up. Los Angeles is going to have to fight very hard against the "been-there-done-that" sentiment. (Plus, the newly approved plans to refurbish Coliseum only call for 68,000 seats -- so I'm not totally certain that LA doesn't have some stadium glitches of their own.) Personally, I have trouble imagining San Francisco or Houston will be able to pull it off. There are a lot of big IF's -- that's why I think it's still very possible that the US won't bid for 2016.

As for a "temporary stadium", I agree with Baron that a temporary structure isn't going to cut it. Other venues -- go for it, but not the "centerpiece of the Games" as it's often called. I also don't see how it helps to stage the athletics and the ceremonies at two different venues -- you still have to reach minimum seating capacity in both venues. It seems to me the only possible way to minimize the threat of a white elephant is to follow in London's footsteps and go with a plan that would allow the seating to be reduced after the Games. Even with this scenario -- what does that buy Chicago? Just a smaller athletics stadium whose use would be undetermined. I hate to say it, but it really does seem like Chicago's best bet is wooing another NFL team.

San Francisco is as european as one can get with an American City. Agreed with Chicago being seen as the quintesential american city.

[schulzte]

Above is a picture of the neighborhood surrounding New Ryan Field, it does actually fit in the area.

See more at My Webpage

This is a challenging concept that one of my readers gave me. Apparently Chicago is in the running for the 2016 Olympics, and there needs to be an Olympic Stadium in the bid. The only plausible use for a sports team after the Olympics would be the Northwestern Wildcats football team, as the Chicago Bears new flying saucer can't accomodate track and field any more. So the reader asked for a plan to renovate Ryan Field as a possible Olympic Stadium.

I've never been to Ryan Field, but I've watched enough Big Ten football and seen enough pictures that I know what it looks like. I don't think a simple renovation would be adequate for Ryan Field, it would have to be nearly completely rebuilt. The existing field of play is too narrow for Olympic track and field. However, I think the West stands, which appear to be the main grandstand, could be incorporated into a new Olympic Stadium. The West stand is pretty cool looking, with towers on each end and a unique sloping balcony. However, the rest of the stadium looks unremarkable, and a ton of seats would have to be added anyway, so here is the plan.

- Keep the West main grandstand, remove benches, and replace with actual seats. This looks like about 25,000 capacity by my scale.

- Tear down the other seating. Replace with structure containing 46,000 seats. with 20,000 capacity in the lower bowl, 12,000 in the upper bowl, and 11,000 in an eastern upper deck. 3,000 more seats will be in a club/suite level high above the stadium like other Big Ten schools. I had more end seating in an original plan, but after looking at the city map, I saw that I would have torn through lots of buildings, including the basketball arena, so I had to change the plan to have more sideline seats.

Bleachers could be added between the endzone and main seating bowl to create closer football stands like the LA Coliseum. Total capacity is 71,000. This is short of the 80,000 standard for the Olympics, but Athens was a little short too and got away with it, and 80,000 would be a really tight squeeze at this site. With a good bid from Chicago, that could be overlooked, considering there would be a good use for the stadium after the games; unlike many Olympic venues. The stadium could be downsized after the Olympics for use by Northwestern football, as 71,000 might be a bit much for them. However, I think the track should be maintained after the Olympics, because there are almost no large track and field stadiums remaining in the US any more, and Chicago could host lots of non-Olympic track and field and big soccer matches if they have the best stadium in the nation for it; it could be more or less the permanent national stadium.

Let me know what you think.

TS

[ejaycat]

San Francisco is as european as one can get with an American City. Agreed with Chicago being seen as the quintesential american city.

But how is SF "European?"

[Sir Rols]

But how is SF "European?"

San Francisco has a feel all it's own _ it's liberalism, its multicultural make-up, it's location etc. I really can't see it as "European" in any way. If anything, it shares a certain Pacific vibe to it similar to the likes of Sydney, Auckland or even Hong Kong. I've always felt that it was the closest overseas city in terms of vibe to my own hometown of Sydney.

[LA84]

San Francisco has a feel all it's own _ it's liberalism, its multicultural make-up, it's location etc. I really can't see it as "European" in any way. If anything, it shares a certain Pacific vibe to it similar to the likes of Sydney, Auckland or even Hong Kong. I've always felt that it was the closest overseas city in terms of vibe to my own hometown of Sydney.

I keep seeing that SF is so "European" and I just don't get it. Unless Europe has a huge homeless population in which case we're right there.

If anything, half the time it feels like I am in downtown Tokyo/Bejing/Seoul with the huge Asian population here.

Schulzte - first off welcome to the boards!

You renditions of Ryan Field are impressive and yes, there is probably just enough space around the stadium to expand it. However, I just am not sure that it is the spot for a t&f stadium. Even though the 'El is within walking distance, the area is not served by any major streets and is heavily residential. The main way to get to Ryan is up either Sheridan Road or Clark St., both of which are only one lane roads.

However, Evanston has managed for years to control all the Wildcats games so I may be wrong with my assumptions.

[LA84]

Chicago's newest stadium is now completed and will be opened this weekend

Bridgeview Stadium Ready to Open

[NewYork2016]

This really gets interesting. Mayor Mike on his radio show this morning stated he'll be in Chicago tonight for a meeting with Mayor Daley. Mayor Mike actually praised Mayor Daley on what he has done to the City of Chicago and stated Chicago had similar problems with NYC, smaller but similar issues.

Would there be some Olympic talk in the agenda?

[schulzte]

I hoped you liked the drawing. Everybody on this forum said Chicago doesn't really need a new stadium, and I would agree. But Ryan Field is old and one of the smallest in the Big Ten, so I thought at least Northwestern could actually use a new stadium; it would probably be the best use of a new stadium in the Chicago area, certainly better than building a new Olympic Stadium simply to tear most of it down like London is in 2012.

[LA84]

This really gets interesting. Mayor Mike on his radio show this morning stated he'll be in Chicago tonight for a meeting with Mayor Daley. Mayor Mike actually praised Mayor Daley on what he has done to the City of Chicago and stated Chicago had similar problems with NYC, smaller but similar issues.

Would there be some Olympic talk in the agenda?

I hope so. NYC had a great bid for 2012. Any insight Bloomberg can share with Richie would certainly be helpful!

I hoped you liked the drawing. Everybody on this forum said Chicago doesn't really need a new stadium, and I would agree. But Ryan Field is old and one of the smallest in the Big Ten, so I thought at least Northwestern could actually use a new stadium; it would probably be the best use of a new stadium in the Chicago area, certainly better than building a new Olympic Stadium simply to tear most of it down like London is in 2012.

They are great drawings and from what I can tell, would probably fit into the area around the field.

As for any expansion being permanent, I just don't see it because of the congestion it would create in Evanston. Northwestern and the city are constantly at battle over expansion of the University. I could see Evanston allowing for a temporary expansion for the Olympics but would probably insist that it be temporary.

*sigh* It would be so much simpler if Memorial Stadium in Champaign could just be used. Besides, it's only 1/2 hour from my parents house!

[Athensfan]

Whether SF is European or not, whether the city has international appeal or not, there are still big questions about whether or not SF has the organizational capacity to stage a games. From everything I've heard, the Bay Area is notorious for bureaucratic entanglements. This is going to be SF's big issue -- not image.

[LA84]

Whether SF is European or not, whether the city has international appeal or not, there are still big questions about whether or not SF has the organizational capacity to stage a games. From everything I've heard, the Bay Area is notorious for bureaucratic entanglements. This is going to be SF's big issue -- not image.

You are absolutely right.

To wit, the residents of Bayview/Hunters Point, where Baron and I both agree would be an ideal place for a village, are starting a petition drive to stop the redevelopment of the area and put the measure on the ballot in November:

Hunters Point Redevelopment Challenged

Last Tuesday, the people of SF had 4 ballot measures they had to vote on, including who would be on the board for the redeevelopment of the Trans Bay Terminal, requiring landlords to tell prospective tenants whether they had ever kicked out an elderly/disabled person, etc.

There is no way that SF could be awarded the Olympics without some special interest group or pesky Board of Supervisor (Chris Daly, Aaron Peskin, etc.) putting all kinds of ballot initiatives

out there that could potentially halt some of the planning.

[baron-pierreIV]

Many on Gamesbids also say that SF is "very European." My question is: HOW??

Bon jour, everyone, I'm back. So, how is SF very 'European'? Well, when I get there and say, I want to have a Cafe au LAit & a croissant, then I say SF is very 'European.' When I want to have Thai, OK, then it becomes Asian. So, it's really how I decide and decree that SF's ambiance should be.

Hope that answers the question.

[baron-pierreIV]

Above is a picture of the neighborhood surrounding New Ryan Field, it does actually fit in the area.

See more at My Webpage

welcome, schultze. Good initiative. However:

1. The expansion you propose, how does that improve the facility's north-south axis? Or its east-west axis?

2. A main Olympic stadium still needs a lot more land around it for: broadcast trailers, parking for other vehicles -- another stadium/arena nearby as a holding tank for the athletes and Ceremonies performers during Ceremonies; and a warm-up track nearby. You got to have those at a minimum for a viable bid.

So it just looks too tight for Ryan Field.

[schulzte]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean about North South and East West Axis. However, as far as staging area, the building directly to the North of Ryan Field is McGaw Hall, which contains an 8,500 seat basketball arena which could be an Olympic Venue anyway, as well as a large general assembly space on the north of the arena. This would seem an appropriate assembly point. There is also parking space across the street which could be used for media trailers, an adjacent El train station would provide fan access 2 blocks away. The main problems are a lack of parking, which would be a problem anywhere downtown, and a warm up track that isn't on site currently. However, the stadium currently accomodates 50,000, so with some planning, it seems 25,000 more could be managed. A warm up track could be built.

I realize Northwestern probably doesn't want to be overrun with new buildings for the Olympics, but I would be surprised if they were gifted a virtually new stadium and wouldn't cooperate. USC and UCLA venues were utilized heavily in 1984, and venues were built for or utilized from Georgia Tech in 1996. The other Chicago stadium scenarios just don't make any sense. Soldier Field was contructed so that a track and field couldn't be placed inside without a near total reconstruction; it wouldn't be a simple add more seats situation. And building a new stadium without a permanent tennant will be a failure, and a temporary stadium will be a non starter for the IOC.