Jump to content

Full Chicago 2016 Plan Out


Recommended Posts

Not just pedestrian gridlock baron. As I've stated before, I've been in this area during the Chicago International Auto Show. Traffic was the worst I've seen, it's like my hometown Manila. Cars that just want to get in the entrances to the parking lots. And of all days, on a Sunday!

Honestly, this looks like the West Side Stadium with 10 times worse potential problems.

Oh, they won't let any private vehicles within a 1/2 mile radius of the downtown center. Which is why I didn't mention any cars. Private cars were not allowed by that distance in Atlanta's downtown in 1996; and Atlanta, had maybe only a dozen sports in the Georgia Convention Center/Peachdome/Omni area. But getting from one location to the other was really quite daunting.

They may have to block off all traffic on Lakeshore Drive, too, during busy Games hours.

That's the thing with an ultra-compact plan. That whole downtown area of Chicago where the venues, the 2 stadia, and the Village are -- will be in TOTAL LOCKDOWN mode 48 hours before OC; therefore for 20 days; that whole section will be flashing their security badges every time they breathe. They are going to have to seal all sewers and underground access -- but at the same time they have to get supplies and emergency vehicles thru.

And these are all just the land arrangements. How do you secure the Lakeside phalanx of the whole setup? So to me, at this point, Chicago's plan is going to be a total nightmare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Hey Thrillos, Philly isn't saying what it's main stadium plan(s) will be? I think that's the whole crux of the American quest for 2016 -- which city can banish the terrible faux pas of the 2012 New York bid.

Regardless, at this point in time I don't think its necessary nor mandatory for them to release any info about any plan, stadium or otherwise, to the general public. The exception being to the USOC during those meetings last month. And my comments were made in jest, don't take them so seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm surprised wasn't on the map, but will probably come to fruition, will be the use of Wisconsin in the Olympic Plan. Daley has been trying for years to get high speed rail from Chicago to Milwaukee to Madison, and no matter if Wisconsin gets venues for 2016, will probably be up in running well before 2016.

But many observers thought Wisconsin would get at least 2 venues in Green Bay and Madison, as well as rowing in Lake Geneva or sailing in Milwaukee, but because of congestion of venues, I think Daley will move at least some events up north later on in the process, or south in downstate Illinois near Champaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And these are all just the land arrangements. How do you secure the Lakeside phalanx of the whole setup? So to me, at this point, Chicago's plan is going to be a total nightmare.

Not any more of a nightmare than New Yorks would have been, depending on a high speed ferry system to transport athletes back and forth over the river. Or if San Francisco decides to put up the village along the water at Hunters Point, not to mention Candlestick's proximity to the water.

From a security standpoint, Chicago is used to securing the lakefront for the many large events that have been held along the lake.

As for the traffic around McCormick Place being bad - believe me, it's not any better or worse than coming out of Mets game, as an example, which is one of the worst traffic tieups I have ever been in. When you have a large event there is going to be traffic gridlock. Bottom line, in the 20 years I lived in Chicago there is only one or two times I can think of that I got caught around McCormick Place/Soldier Field when we weren't moving.

Besides, public transportation is the key to a successful games and the city already has that and it has worked great since the Grant Park walk/byways were built when Soldier Field was rebuilt so that people can leave their cars at home.

As for the math (did you use a calculator for that? :D ) Taste of Chicago just ended in Grant Park, which is held every year. Approx 350,000 people attended each day for 10 days. No murders, no deaths - 1 abandoned child, a few arrests but as per usual in it's 27 year or so existance, security was tight and everything went smoothly. A few times there have been problems in the past but those are far and few.

As for people complaining about the plan being too compact, I have been sitting here laughing my ass off all day. The IOC wants a compact plan and Chicago is delivering. :D

As for the 2 stadium, opening/closing idea it's probably just a P.R. campaign and the USOC will probably put the kabosh on it. The important part is that there will be an 80,000 seat stadium.

From what I see so far it is far superior to a lot of plans that have been floated around. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way the article makes it out, the athletes would be making a sort of journey along the walk, from Soldier Field to the Olympic Stadium.

Along the way athletes would see references in mulitiple ways of the history of the Olympics, like Baron Pierre de Coubrtien and past Olympics, along with the telling of the history of Chicago and the Midwest.

I guess something like 3-D Holograms and mist machines along the walk would be used or just plaques.

It sounds like the traditional final episode memorial walk amongst tokens of evicted tribe-members on "Survivor".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like the traditional final episode memorial walk amongst tokens of evicted tribe-members on "Survivor".

It's something you see at airports in those LOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNG corridors.

Or maybe, since they didn't sell those platforms of the Athens Opening, it will be an excuse for that whole Athens cast to get together and recreate their pageant?? :D

Taste of Chicago just ended in Grant Park, which is held every year. Approx 350,000 people attended each day for 10 days.

Yeah; but that's an open-type event. Terrorists don't care for those open-type events; only right-wing nuts like Randolph in Centennial Park in Atlanta.

But seriously, attending a world-class event like an Olympics, and even more so with each passing year, will make you go thru layers of security just to get in. Not name-dropping here, but in Barcelona, it was like prepping for an int'l flight. "Please get to the stadium 2 hours before the show!" And that was all pre-9/11.

I think from a security stand-point, the farther distances of a Bay Area bid will work better. Besides, we always have Alcatraz to remind troublemakers that Gitmo may close, but we can always reopen ALcatraz as Gitmo-West!! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mo Rush and the Chicago Olympic Stadium

Capacity 80,000

The stadium rests in the sit along the bay and within walking distance of McCormick Place. Extensive use of uninterrupted tiers of seating minimizes costs dramatically as the second and third tier float above the solid groud llevel tier of seating. A network of beams connects the first tier to the second tier which remains uncovered. A similar system is used to connect the tiers of the covered portion of the stadium.

The lightweight roof floats above the temporary stadium providing shade for approximately 45,000 spectators and is supported by eight beams which extend across the adjacent roads. The stadium is positioned to "open up" to the bay providing spectators and the media with views across the bay throughout the Track and field competition and would provide dramatic visuals at night during the opening ceremony. The roof is supported at an angle by the beams.

The arch concept will be constructed independent of the stadium structure. The current idea would be to light the arch with the flame from either end by two significant american athletes or figures..one being female and the other male. The flame would move up along the arch from either end and then lower itself to light the cauldron which sits outside the stadium. The flame moving up the arch from either side will connect at the top of the arch moments before the arch meets the cauldron.

The floating tiers of seating with excellent sighlines of the Olympic Action allow for easier dismantling of the stadium after the olympic games and their design will allow them to be used elsewhere if need be. The second tier on either side of the stadium are connected by large hgh definition videos screens. The disconnected tiers also allow for a simpler dismantling/demolition process.

chicagoolympicstdaium4gf.jpg

chicagoolympicstadium26sc.jpg

Arch lowered and about to light the cauldron.

chicagoolympicstdaiumlit7al.jpg

apologies for the spelling errors.

The stadium rests in the site along the bay and within walking distance of McCormick Place. Extensive use of uninterrupted tiers of seating minimizes costs dramatically as the second and third tier float above the solid groud level tier of seating. A network of beams connects the first tier to the second tier which remains uncovered. A similar system is used to connect the tiers of the covered portion of the stadium.

The lightweight roof floats above the temporary stadium providing shade for approximately 45,000 spectators and is supported by eight beams which extend across the adjacent roads. The stadium is positioned to "open up" to the bay providing spectators and the media with views across the bay throughout the Track and field competition and would provide dramatic visuals at night during the opening ceremony. The roof is supported at an angle by the beams.

The arch concept will be constructed independent of the stadium structure. The current idea would be to light the arch with the flame from either end by two significant american athletes or figures..one being female and the other male. The flame would move up along the arch from either end and then lower itself to light the cauldron which sits outside the stadium. The flame moving up the arch from either side will connect at the top of the arch moments before the arch meets the cauldron.

The floating tiers of seating with excellent sighlines of the Olympic Action allow for easier dismantling of the stadium after the olympic games and their design will allow them to be used elsewhere if need be. The second tier on either side of the stadium are connected by large high definition video screens visble to all spectators within the stadium. The disconnected second tier also allows for a simpler dismantling/demolition process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mo, where did you get that? Name the source. Or is that something you whipped up?

It's a great concept. However, I think the IOC may be split on this. Half may agree that it's very fiscally responsible; but there's the other half that fear this may lead to a trend of all 'temporary' structures, leaving nothing in the way of grand Olympic legacies. They have an 'edifice' complex at the IOC. If the USOC will go with this, I suggest they informally poll the IOC first.

At this point, I am saying this is a liability in terms of winning the IOC vote. Further, the USOC has stated that they want to bid for the 2011 IAAF CHampionships, and they've fronted the initial bid fees just to hold a US slot. Chicago's 'temp' stadium TOTALLY precludes that oppty since it will be up for only 10 months or so in 2016. Whereas, if the new SF 49er breaks ground in 2008, then there is something, pardon the pun, concrete to show that a stadium will indeed rise by 2010-11. So, hosting the 2011 IAAF Championships would only bolster SF's bid as the race heads into the 2009 selection date.

I'd say the IOC and USOC would lean towards an earlier permanent structure, like the 49er stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks for the reply baron..its something i designed myself last night...the area they are using for the stadium is very tight considering u have the water on one side and roads on the other side...i asked for the locaton of the various venues so that i could produce a few of these as well as an aquatic centre and so forth...btw where will the aquatic centre be located? velodrome etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's something that temporary, no way will it have a roof. That would require deeper foundations in which to anchor a roof. It will be very bare bones. The end section of Atlanta's Turner Field (where those spirits rose up in the 1996 Opening Ceremony; and where they pulled out a lot of seats at the last minute so that the athletes could march down in that very awkward entrance), was simply concrete tiers. Not much else. It wasn't even painted. I'm sure they aren't even going to use concrete for much of the stands. It will be a lot of steel scaffolding that can easily be dismantled.

That being said, I don't really think it strengthens Chicago's hand, especially if SF can break ground by 2008, or 2009 at the latest!! (C'mon, Philly, we gotta see what u have within a few days, otherwise, you're out!!) :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whereas, if the new SF 49er breaks ground in 2008, then there is something, pardon the pun, concrete to show that a stadium will indeed rise by 2010-11. So, hosting the 2011 IAAF Championships would only bolster SF's bid as the race heads into the 2009 selection date.

I'd say the IOC and USOC would lean towards an earlier permanent structure, like the 49er stadium.

San Francisco build a stadium in in 2-3 years? :D:lol:;)

The only problem with that scenario is first, there will be some sort of voter initiative about rebuilding Candlestick (probably have to do with making sure doghouses are also included in the plan so Fido and Fluffy have a place to nap during the games). :D Then one of the Supervisors would probably insist that homeless people get free seating along the 50 yard line or something. Now in the midst of all of this you can count on there being a voter initiative whether to host the games or not.

So assuming that it passes we are now at, oh say, 2008-2009 and construction begins. So using the Bay Bridge rebuilding as a guideline of how things are built in San Francisco, work will stop at some point for some reason - bad concrete, cost over run, etc. Then it will start up again but the plan will be slightly modified. And it will drag on at a leisurly pace until we are at 2015 and the whole situation becomes - Athens - Part II :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

London has a temporary stadium of sorts as well. Until we see exactly what the plan is for the temporary stadium in Chicago it cannot be dismissed. Especially with Chicago's record of getting major construction projects done and creating architectural masterpieces.

Besides, these plans are always modified to death before the final vote.

The plan is a great start so far, although I do hope that the USOC/IOC puts the kabosh on that 2 stadium opening/closing plan. Although, it would be a great revenue generator to do it that way so the IOC might absolutely love it from that perspective. <_<

LA 84 -- I knew somebody would be cheeky and respond exactly the way you did. I've been following your posts for a while and usually I agree with them. Not this time. I don't think the comparison between London and Chicago's stadium plans is justified. Although both plans are still being modified, there are significant differences. At this point, Chicago's stadium will be completely dismantled and a park will be laid out in it's place leaving virtually no trace of Olympic legacy (apart from the odd statue, plaque, or cauldron...). London's stadium is not temporary, it is being designed in such a way that it can be downsized -- not completely dismantled. Seb Coe has been very clear that a "tin shed" will not be acceptable. Once the world is wowed by Beijing, I don't think the IOC is going to settle for the penny-pinching approach. That's exactly how Chicago's stadium "solution" feels at the moment. There are too many other world-class destinations willing to promise spectacular permanent structures for the IOC to go with souped-up scaffolding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

San Francisco build a stadium in in 2-3 years? :D:lol:;)

The only problem with that scenario is first, there will be some sort of voter initiative about rebuilding Candlestick (probably have to do with making sure doghouses are also included in the plan so Fido and Fluffy have a place to nap during the games). :D Then one of the Supervisors would probably insist that homeless people get free seating along the 50 yard line or something. Now in the midst of all of this you can count on there being a voter initiative whether to host the games or not.

So assuming that it passes we are now at, oh say, 2008-2009 and construction begins. So using the Bay Bridge rebuilding as a guideline of how things are built in San Francisco, work will stop at some point for some reason - bad concrete, cost over run, etc. Then it will start up again but the plan will be slightly modified. And it will drag on at a leisurly pace until we are at 2015 and the whole situation becomes - Athens - Part II :blink:

Uhmmm...No. Except for the $100 million, bond, the rest of the Stadium project is to be privately financed. The Bay Bridge is a public works project involving State monies. Not quite the same.

THere are already established plans for a stadium. It may need a little tweaking, but it's not like it's within 2 or 3 city jurisdictions, etc.; or that they're throwing in a retractable roof, or something. It's on SF's land; and the only thing holding it up is York-DeBartolo finding the rest of the financing. That may fall into place. ANd yeah, Gavin may be bluffing. But I think the 5 cities are showing what they can at this point, to make the short list. If that means, exaggerating a little, then so be it. I'm sure the USOC gives leeway for that.

Re Chicago and London plans: London will have a scaled-down stadium left after their Games. Chicago at this point, says they are only putting it up for 2016; and then it would be a mere memory. To my mind, that doesn't merit any Legacy points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re the stadium - I agree. If it looks chintzy then it won't do. However the similarities in what Chicago is presenting to what London is doing are indeed relevant.

Chicago has indicated that they will not tear the whole thing down after the games and will leave a portion of it as a legacy to the Games - exactly what London is doing except where London is keeping a small track and field stadium, Chicago may keep, say a peristyle, colonade or something from the facility and use it as the centerpiece of Olympic Park.

Again - we cannot judge until we see the final renderings.

Speaking of which - MO. I think your ideas are great but I suspect that the temporary stadium will feature a colonade the will mimick the ones at Soldier Field. Think you could do a rendering featuring that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't like Chicago's stadium idea between there being two stadiums and it being completely temporary....I hope SF and/or Philly come up with a better stadium idea than this (alhtough I don't think it could get much worse unless they put it in some weird location)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of the whole two stadiums idea. Houston tried something similar along those lines when the city went for the 2012 Games. The idea was to have athletics events in a renovated Astrodome while the ceremonies would be held in Reliant Stadium. To me it seems as if Chicago is trying what Houston tried several years back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of the whole two stadiums idea. Houston tried something similar along those lines when the city went for the 2012 Games. The idea was to have athletics events in a renovated Astrodome while the ceremonies would be held in Reliant Stadium. To me it seems as if Chicago is trying what Houston tried several years back.

U misunderstand, I think. They are NOT putting up a 'temp' stadium just for 1 event. THe plan calls for a 'temp' stadium, which just happens to be beside Soldiers Field, to house BOTH T&F AND Ceremonies. SF will merely serve as an adjunct, support stadium. It's NOT like they are putting up a 'temp' stadium and THEN split the main events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Chicago Tribune article basically reiterating what we have said about Chicago's plan:

Chicago's Olympic plans stumble in starting block

By Blair Kamin

Tribune architecture critic

Published July 16, 2006

Thinking big is practically a part of Chicago's genetic code, as evidenced by its soaring skyscrapers and the way its leaders constantly quote Daniel Burnham and his exhortation "make no little plans." But big can sometimes be bone-headed, and Exhibit A is the city's initial plan for the 2016 Olympics.

It pains me to write this because I want the Olympics in Chicago as much as anybody. But key aspects of this plan are bone-headed with a capital "B," especially its unprecedented call for having the Opening and Closing Ceremonies in side-by-side stadiums -- Soldier Field and a temporary, 80,000-seat track-and-field stadium that would rise just south of the no-longer-a-national-landmark pigskin palace.

More seats!

More revenue!

Big!

Uh, oh yes: The idea brought a skeptical response from the International Olympic Committee, which surely can't be pleased with the prospect of 10,500 world-class athletes being forced to schlep from one stadium to another.

"Currently, such an idea would not be compatible with Games operations," the spokeswoman, Giselle Davies, told the Tribune's Philip Hersh. "However, the IOC is always open to ideas and proposals, which, if made, would be discussed and studied."

Perhaps the Olympic people were diplomatically suggesting that Chicago's stadium plan needed some serious editing. Or maybe they were laying the groundwork for a future tabloid headline. Something like: "Olympics to Chicago: Drop Dead!"

Whatever their motivation, the only way to miss the scent of disapproval was to hold your nose. Retreating from the two-stadium idea, Michael Segobiano, the city's director of marketing, told Hersh: "We are not married to a single concept."

If there were an Olympic event called "backpedaling," that would rate a gold medal.

Too bad, because the overall plan does have good strokes, particularly for the city's long-neglected south lakefront, which is showing real signs of improvement after years of being overlooked by city officials because most of its parkgoers were poor and black.

In Burnham Park, south of McCormick Place, fill dumped into the lake has created new outcroppings that offer drop-dead views of the downtown skyline. After years of delay, Chicago finally plans to build pedestrian bridges to link the park with the neighborhoods to the west. The median plantings along South Lake Shore Drive are every bit as attractive as their counterparts on the north.

And yet this remains a second-class park, much of it lacking simple amenities such as picnic tables and benches.This is a shameful case of unfinished business, particularly considering that the city, private patrons and corporations have spent more than $1 billion combined on Millennium Park and Soldier Field.

A long shot

An Olympics centered on the south lakefront -- as this one promises to be with an Olympic Village south of McCormick Place and west of South Lake Shore Drive, plus an Olympic Park east of Lake Shore Drive -- undoubtedly would provide the impetus to finish the job with dune grasses, picnic shelters and other features planners have long dreamed of.

But without the right stadium plan, the chances of that happening are no better than the Cubs' shot at reaching the World Series.

There are lots of other things to wonder about, including the plan's authorship.

While it is known that Chicago architects Skidmore, Owings & Merrill were shaping a temporary stadium and Chicago architect Stanley Tigerman had gathered a group of talented architects to brainstorm Olympic plans, it is unclear who did what and whether the efforts were coordinated.

At least in its present form, the outcome appears problematic. Putting the bulk of the Olympics along the lakefront, for example, is both a strength and a potential weakness.

On the one hand, the shoreline is the best face that this topographically challenged city can offer -- sparkling waters, cool lake breezes and views of downtown skyscrapers, the manmade cliffs and canyons with which Chicago has heroically compensated for its lack of appealing natural features.

In another major plus, the compact plan would place nearly 75 percent of the athletes within a mile of their competition sites. That's far better than having the Olympic Village downtown, then forcing athletes to make their way to a suburban racetrack that would be turned into a track-and-field stadium, as Chicago-based sports stadium consultant Marc Ganis suggested last year.

But squeezing the Olympics along the lakefront also promises traffic headaches because the area is poorly served by public transit. Unless the city makes heavy use of water taxis, venues there can be reached only from three directions (north, south and west), not four. Shuttle buses from downtown train stations and parking garages would help, but I wonder: While the Games may be convenient for the athletes, how will all the spectators get there?

Then there's the questionable idea of making McCormick Place a major site for Olympic events; the lakefront convention center would reportedly host 16 of 38 sporting disciplines.

Utilitarian location

The sprawling convention center may be the right place for the auto show, but it's no architectural showcase, nothing like the iconic Olympic velodrome that Santiago Calatrava designed for the 2004 Olympics in Athens. It's hard to imagine big chunks of an Olympics in Chicago, a mecca for architecture, in such a utilitarian location.

Finally, would the temporary track-and-field stadium really be temporary?

The troubling precedent is the Petrillo Music Shell, which was supposed to be taken apart and stored each year after the concert season so it would not mar the openness and greenery of Grant Park. In 1978, the Chicago Park District refused to keep its promise to disassemble the shell, claiming the job would cost too much.

Similar pressures might arise if Chicago spends $150 million to $250 million for a temporary track-and-field stadium. If it did not come down, an almost-continuous wall of megastructures -- Soldier Field, the track and field stadium and the east building of McCormick Place -- would block the city from its shoreline.

Here's a big idea for all those big-thinking Olympic planners: If a temporary stadium plan does go forward, it must be accompanied by a guarantee that such an outcome never will occur. The last thing we need after the Olympics is a lakefront that makes us cry: "Mr. Daley, tear down this wall!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had Phil Hirsch written this (Olympic sports columnist for the Tribune) then I might take it more seriously. But Blair Kamin is an architectural columnist whose past work has been questionable at best. However, he/she does raise some good points.

I do see a problem with traffic if Lake Shore Drive is shut down as the perimeter around Atlanta's Olympic Stadium was. Granted, public transport is only about 7 blocks away but I can see some people getting pissy if they actually have to walk. Shuttle buses would probobaly run over to the lake from the Roosevelt Road stop but I question if something more would needs to be done.

As far as rerouting traffic around Soldier Field, that would involve using Michigan Avenue or Ashland - neither of which are known for moving quickly.

But then again, historically during the Olympics the host cities residents tend to leave town so maybe it is doable. I just don't know at this point.

Water taxis is a great idea and could possibly expand the water taxi system already in place.

I agree - the two stadium opening/closing is a silly idea. I am sure the USOC/IOC will nix that idea despite the fact that the IOC is always looking for new ideas and ways to increase publicity and revenue - which this idea would certainly generate. But the dual opening/closing isn't a reason to dismiss the entire bid.

The fears about the temporary stadium coming down are ridiculous. Daley wants to tear down McCormick Place/Lakeside so that he can expand the parks. If she/he thinks that both it and Olympic Stadium next door will never come down, he/she doesn't understand how important Daley and the citizens view that lakefront. Petrillo was in the middle of Grant Park and was a small little bandshell. Her comparison is weak.

As for her critisism of McCormick Place - Chicago made it clear that it wasn't going to run a deficit as Athens did with it's beautiful - yet highly expensive and not payed for - Calatrava venue. Unless she/he is going to write a check to cover the expense I think she would be better off thanking the city for finding a way to host without going into debt. What she needs to understand is that the U.S. will only hold these events if we feel that we won't go into debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...