Jump to content

Full Chicago 2016 Plan Out


Recommended Posts

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.

QAh, so correct me if I'm wrong, but the plan is not actually for this temporary stadium to host events, but merely serve as the warm-up field for the track events (which is a requirement anyway). In that case, yeah, it makes sense rarther than building a whole new facility just as a practice arena.

Still can't see what they're trying to achieve by introducing two-stadium ceremonies, though. Or maybe this is the next evolution in ceremonies _ they've done water, they've done people flying through the air on cables. Now, a la Melbourne's CWGs, the trend is going to be to have a lot of the ceremonies happen outside the main stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply
QAh, so correct me if I'm wrong, but the plan is not actually for this temporary stadium to host events, but merely serve as the warm-up field for the track events (which is a requirement anyway). In that case, yeah, it makes sense rarther than building a whole new facility just as a practice arena.

Still can't see what they're trying to achieve by introducing two-stadium ceremonies, though. Or maybe this is the next evolution in ceremonies _ they've done water, they've done people flying through the air on cables. Now, a la Melbourne's CWGs, the trend is going to be to have a lot of the ceremonies happen outside the main stadium.

an idea like this was part of the cape town 2004 olympic bid. way back in 1997. the ceremony plans included a "freedom flame" on robben island before the flame would make its way back across the ocean to the city and then to the stadium on the night of the ceremony. the ceremony itself would be presented from various locations in south africa and be combined forming one live ceremony to the viewers across the world. the olympic stadium would of course had featured most of the main theatrical and technical wizadry but many of the important locations in south african history e.g. robben island, the cradle of humankind, an athlete standing at cape point etc were all seen as possible locations for part of the ceremony.

the concept is certainly not a new one i dont think.i suppose "new" in terms of being implemented for the first time..recently

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QAh, so correct me if I'm wrong, but the plan is not actually for this temporary stadium to host events, but merely serve as the warm-up field for the track events (which is a requirement anyway). In that case, yeah, it makes sense rarther than building a whole new facility just as a practice arena.

Still can't see what they're trying to achieve by introducing two-stadium ceremonies, though. Or maybe this is the next evolution in ceremonies _ they've done water, they've done people flying through the air on cables. Now, a la Melbourne's CWGs, the trend is going to be to have a lot of the ceremonies happen outside the main stadium.

No, the Chicago plan, as announced, calls for Ceremonies/T&F to be housed in the 'temp' stadium since Soldier does not conform to the IOC & IAAF reqs. They don't plan to alter SF. So, the new 'temp' stadium will satisfy the 80,000 IOC req. & have a 400m track as well.

SF will be an adjunct stadium; I dunno if it's intended for football; but it will stay whereas the 'temp Olympic' stadium will come down. They will just happen to be beside each other -- pretty much as the Fulton County Stadium functioned beside the new Olympic Stade in Atlanta. Fulton County served as the staging arena for the 1996 Ceremonies (and then baseball); and was taken down after the Games, since Olympic Stadium was going to be the Braves' new home, having already served its Olympic duties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of a temporary venue in Chicago intrigues me. Just who the heck is going to pay for the thing? The OCOG can't pay for it. Is the city meant to pick up the tab? I'm sure the voters will just love that.

Also, the space looks kinda tight. Olympic track and field requires a two full-size warmup tracks (one for track warmup, one for field) to be located just next to the main venue. New York had some ridiculous idea for doing them on a barge on the river. Where would they fit in this Chicago site?

One thing clearly missing from the windy city plan seems to be a location for the press and tv centers. Those things are huge and it looks like they've already taken all of their conference center for sport...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of a temporary venue in Chicago intrigues me. Just who the heck is going to pay for the thing? The OCOG can't pay for it. Is the city meant to pick up the tab? I'm sure the voters will just love that.

Also, the space looks kinda tight. Olympic track and field requires a two full-size warmup tracks (one for track warmup, one for field) to be located just next to the main venue. New York had some ridiculous idea for doing them on a barge on the river. Where would they fit in this Chicago site?

One thing clearly missing from the windy city plan seems to be a location for the press and tv centers. Those things are huge and it looks like they've already taken all of their conference center for sport...

oh please they'll have them, and their stadium idea can work

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of a temporary venue in Chicago intrigues me. Just who the heck is going to pay for the thing? The OCOG can't pay for it. Is the city meant to pick up the tab? I'm sure the voters will just love that.

Also, the space looks kinda tight. Olympic track and field requires a two full-size warmup tracks (one for track warmup, one for field) to be located just next to the main venue. New York had some ridiculous idea for doing them on a barge on the river. Where would they fit in this Chicago site?

One thing clearly missing from the windy city plan seems to be a location for the press and tv centers. Those things are huge and it looks like they've already taken all of their conference center for sport...

Um - yea. And where is San Francsico's location of the press and tv centers?

Still haven't heard that tidbit.

I know you are new so I will point out that these issues have been covered before. McCormick Place for both of your questions -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Matier and Ross article that got me excited about all this as it refers to San Francisco suggested Hunters Point for press and TV. They have a couple million square feet in light industrial warehouses down there.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...=005&sc=562

Looks from past Olympics as if you need, like, a million sq ft for press and broadcast (can anyone confirm?). If McCormick is 2.2 million and you take half of that for press and broadcast, how do you get so many sports into the rest of it? With only 8,000 parking spots?

http://www.mccormickplace.com/SubLink.cfm?...=1&Sub_ID=4

Just trying to understand is all, so we can make some really informed judgements. Amazed at the depth of knowledge on this board!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the 2012 plan, the San Mateo Convention Center would've been the Press & IBC -- very convenient because the world's press would be housed in all the hotels along Bayshore Blvd. running up & down the Bay/Airport side of 101 between SFO and the City. Still sounds like a good idea to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any chance of the Moscone Centre being used in such a role?

well, Moscone will house like 4 or 5 sports -- that ones that usually get consigned to Convention Centers. So I think -- unless they are completely redoing the 2012 plan -- like fencing, wrestling, ping pong, judo; I dunno - handball maybe? Aside from the Cow Palace, PacBell Park, Brooks Hall & the new Stadium, Moscone would be the only place within SF proper to house a few more sports to qualify Newsom's claims that this is a more 'SF-centric' bid than the last one. If they took the sports away from Moscone, then realistically, maybe there would only be like, 6 sports being played within SF's boundaries -- and 18 others elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are we talking about SF locations here <_<

Looks from past Olympics as if you need, like, a million sq ft for press and broadcast (can anyone confirm?). If McCormick is 2.2 million and you take half of that for press and broadcast, how do you get so many sports into the rest of it? With only 8,000 parking spots?

http://www.mccormickplace.com/SubLink.cfm?...=1&Sub_ID=4

Just trying to understand is all, so we can make some really informed judgements. Amazed at the depth of knowledge on this board!

Well that link only includes the current three parts of the convention center. There is an expansion built right now that is set to open in 2007 that will include 470,000 sq ft of exibition space, 100,000 sq ft ballroom area and 250,000 sq ft of meeting space. This part of McCormick will also have a covered transportation center inside the building for busses and garage (though I have no idea on the amount of parking spots).

http://mccormick2008.com/building/by-the-numbers.php

Though I wonder if any events can go into Donald E Stephens Convention Center in Rosemont. It's about 2.5 miles away from Allstate Arena and has a train station less than a mile away

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are we talking about SF locations here <_<

Well that link only includes the current three parts of the convention center. There is an expansion built right now that is set to open in 2007 that will include 470,000 sq ft of exibition space, 100,000 sq ft ballroom area and 250,000 sq ft of meeting space. This part of McCormick will also have a covered transportation center inside the building for busses and garage (though I have no idea on the amount of parking spots).

http://mccormick2008.com/building/by-the-numbers.php

Though I wonder if any events can go into Donald E Stephens Convention Center in Rosemont. It's about 2.5 miles away from Allstate Arena and has a train station less than a mile away

I'm sure that something will be held out at the Stephens Center. The 'EL goes to Rosemont so it's a convenient little trip out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well against the odds due to Montreal pulling out of the Gay Games and starting their own, it looks as though Chicago is on track to have hosted the most profitable Gay Games to date:

Clicky Here

Great organization - great security and a profit. Definitely factors to help Chicago's chances for 2016 -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little more insight from The Tribune: B) I trimmed out some of the stuff that we have already discussed on here:

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

Chicago in final 3 for U.S. Olympics bid

By Philip Hersh

Tribune Olympic sports reporter

Published July 26, 2006, 4:55 PM CDT

DENVER -- Chicago is one of three finalists for a potential U.S. bid to host the 2016 Olympics.

The U.S. Olympic Committee announced today it had eliminated Houston and Philadelphia from consideration, leaving Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco in contention.

The decision was based in part on evaluations filed by four technical experts as well as informal international polling about whether 2016 is well timed for a U.S. bid. Also being considered is which city would stand the best chance of selection from among international competitors.

The USOC undoubtedly will tell Chicago to drop its idea of having opening and closing ceremonies commence in two stadiums — Soldier Field and a new temporary stadium — especially after an IOC official told the Tribune the plan would "not be compatible with Games operations."

The evaluations gave a score ranking to each city. Though scores were not disclosed, the Tribune has learned Chicago scored very well in the evaluation of its plan and surprisingly well in the international polling.

They rated 15 areas of each city's preliminary proposal, including an Olympic Stadium with a minimum seating capacity of 75,000; an Olympic Village to house at least 15,000 athletes and officials; media centers; financing of the bid; infrastructure requirements; public opinion; price controls; labor agreements; bid-committee structure; government support, and capital investment.

Chicago proposed financing all of its sports venue construction with about $700 million in private funds, including some $200 million for a temporary Olympic Stadium just south of Soldier Field. The plan also called for private developers to build a $1.5 billion Olympic Village to be used as commercial and residential space after the Games.

According to sources familiar with those plans, Chicago claims to have commitments of $5 million to finance the bid in its domestic phase and assurances it can raise another $20 million from the private sector for the international phase.

The latter would last until the IOC membership chooses the 2016 host in October 2009.

The city's plan also says Olympic-generated revenue, such as tickets, sponsorship, TV rights and marketing, would be used to operate the Games and not for capital investment in facilities that will have long-term use. Atlanta angered many in the IOC by using Olympic revenue to build an Olympic Stadium later turned over to the Atlanta Braves.

Some think the IOC might be disinclined to give the Games to the same U.S. city for a third time. Neither Chicago nor San Francisco has been an Olympic host. Atlanta (1996) and St. Louis (1904) are the other U.S. cities to have staged the Summer Games.

"I think there is a lot of magic in spreading it around because you impact more and different lives when you do so," said Billy Payne, chairman of the Atlanta bid and organizing committees. "At the same time, L.A. has done a good job twice."

The three finalists will have to submit significantly more detailed plans by the fall, after which a USOC evaluation commission will review plans, visit cities and make a report. Each city then will make a final presentation to the USOC board of directors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Some think the IOC might be disinclined to give the Games to the same U.S. city for a third time. Neither Chicago nor San Francisco has been an Olympic host. Atlanta (1996) and St. Louis (1904) are the other U.S. cities to have staged the Summer Games."

There's the key right there: the main count against LA. I think the IOC would really like to see this legacy thing spread out. I mean the youth and sports of LA (and Atlanta) already have had it good because of 1984. Perhaps the youth and sports of Chicago and/or SF should get a chance as their LA counterparts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Tribune today is saying that USOC sources are indicating that Chicago needs to reelect Mayor Daley if we hope to be the US pick in March:

Olympic bid tied to Daley, stadium plan

Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco are 3 U.S. finalists

By Philip Hersh, Tribune Olympic sports reporter. Tribune reporter Gary Washburn contributed to this report

Published July 27, 2006

DENVER -- Mayor Richard M. Daley's political future and Chicago's plans for its main Olympic stadium will be critical to the city's chances to be named the United States' candidate to play host to the 2016 Olympic Games.

While U.S. Olympic Committee officials would not comment directly Wednesday on how significant it would be for Daley to remain mayor during a bid process that does not end until October 2009, they clearly implied mayoral instability is a huge disadvantage after naming Chicago one of three finalists as potential U.S. bidders.

Should Daley announce he will not seek re-election, it wouldn't be the death knell for a Chicago bid. It would, however, have a considerable negative impact, according to sources familiar with the USOC's criteria for choosing a city. That choice is to be made in March.

USOC Chairman Peter Ueberroth made a point of saying that Houston, although eliminated along with Philadelphia, clearly was No. 1 in "quality and coordination of its elected leadership." He noted that Houston's mayor would be in office for the entire bid process as a reason for the city's high score in that area.

"We think Mayor Daley is a terrific leader," Ueberroth said after the Wednesday news conference announcing Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco remained in contention.

Daley said he was "delighted" by the committee's decision.

"We are honored to be a part of this process, and Chicago is committed to working with the USOC to develop a plan that can secure the necessary 60 international votes to bring the Olympic Games to this great city," he said.

Daley acknowledged that he first must win over a U.S. committee whose members include four Californians.

"We can count votes," he quipped. "We believe we have the best proposal."

The decision was based on evaluations filed by four technical experts, informal international polling about whether 2016 is a good time for a U.S. bid and which city would stand the best chance of being selected by the International Olympic Committee.

The evaluations gave each city an overall score. Although the tallies were not revealed, the Tribune has learned Chicago scored remarkably well in the evaluation of its plan and surprisingly well in the international polling, which weighed four times as much as any other factor in the evaluation.

"I heard from various people in the Chicago bid they didn't feel they would do that well internationally," said Bob Ctvrtlik, USOC vice president for international relations. "Chicago was strong internationally."

USOC officials insisted the question of whether to have a 2016 bidder has not been resolved. That decision likely will be made by the end of 2006. The USOC must submit the name of its bid city to the IOC by a date yet to be specified next spring.

"The fact we are taking three cities forward reflects the optimism we've heard in our [international] polling," Ctvrtlik said. "Of 100 [iOC] voters, we had only three who said the U.S. should not submit a bid for 2016."

Ueberroth emphasized all of the cities' initial Olympic proposals needed significant revisions.

"None has an acceptable program we could take to the International Olympic Committee. None," Ueberroth said.

The USOC undoubtedly will tell Chicago to drop its idea of having Opening and Closing Ceremonies commence in Soldier Field and an adjacent temporary stadium.

"We have to talk to Chicago about the two-stadium plan," Ctvrtlik said.

"Some of the proposals put forth by Chicago are not in line with international standards at this point. We feel that given feedback, given more work, and assuming that political will is there, they can revise their plans to be satisfactory."

The experts involved in the evaluation process were George Hirthler, who has advised the successful bids of Atlanta (summer 1996), Beijing (summer 2008) and Vancouver (winter 2010); Jerry Anderson, senior partner at HOK, a specialist in venue operations and Games plan design; Rick Ludwig, a member of the IOC's 2010 evaluation panel; and Sharon Kingman, a telecommunications and broadcast operations specialist.

They rated 15 areas of each city's preliminary proposal, including Olympic Stadium with a minimum seating capacity of 75,000; Olympic Village to house a minimum of 15,000 athletes and officials; media centers; financing of the bid; infrastructure requirements; public opinion; price controls; labor agreements, bid committee structure; government support; and capital investment.

Chicago proposed funding all its sports venue construction with approximately $700 million in private funds, including $200 million for a temporary Olympic stadium directly south of Soldier Field. The Chicago plan also called for private developers to build a $1.5 billion Olympic Village to be used as commercial and residential space after the Games.

According to sources familiar with those plans, Chicago says it has commitments of $5 million to finance the bid in its domestic phase and assurances it can raise another $20 million from the private sector for the international phase of the bid.

The city's plan also says Olympic-generated revenue, such as tickets, sponsorship, TV rights and marketing, would be used to operate the Games and not for capital investment in facilities that will have long-term use. Atlanta angered many in the IOC by using Olympic revenue to build an Olympic Stadium later turned over to the Atlanta Braves.

Both Los Angeles, host of the 1932 and 1984 Olympic Games, and San Francisco were U.S. bidders for the 2012 Olympics. Los Angeles was eliminated in the first cut, while San Francisco was runner-up to New York. New York went on to a resounding defeat in the IOC vote, finishing fourth of five finalists. London won.

Some think the IOC might be disinclined to give the Games to the same U.S. city for a third time. Neither Chicago nor San Francisco has been an Olympic host. Atlanta (1996) and St. Louis (1904) are the other U.S. cities to have staged the Summer Games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The fact we are taking three cities forward reflects the optimism we've heard in our [international] polling," Ctvrtlik said. "Of 100 [iOC] voters, we had only three who said the U.S. should not submit a bid for 2016."

An interesting finding! If 97 out of 100 polled IOC members think the US should submit a bid,then the much talked-about anti-American mood in the IOC is obviously complete nonsense!!

If that isn't an invitation,I don't know what is.In my opinion,given such obvious encouragement,the USOC would be stupid not to go with one of these three cities and submit a bid for 2016!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Tribune today is saying that USOC sources are indicating that Chicago needs to reelect Mayor Daley if we hope to be the US pick in March:

Olympic bid tied to Daley, stadium plan

Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco are 3 U.S. finalists

By Philip Hersh, Tribune Olympic sports reporter. Tribune reporter Gary Washburn contributed to this report

Published July 27, 2006

DENVER -- Mayor Richard M. Daley's political future and Chicago's plans for its main Olympic stadium will be critical to the city's chances to be named the United States' candidate to play host to the 2016 Olympic Games.

While U.S. Olympic Committee officials would not comment directly Wednesday on how significant it would be for Daley to remain mayor during a bid process that does not end until October 2009, they clearly implied mayoral instability is a huge disadvantage after naming Chicago one of three finalists as potential U.S. bidders.

Should Daley announce he will not seek re-election, it wouldn't be the death knell for a Chicago bid. It would, however, have a considerable negative impact, according to sources familiar with the USOC's criteria for choosing a city. That choice is to be made in March.

USOC Chairman Peter Ueberroth made a point of saying that Houston, although eliminated along with Philadelphia, clearly was No. 1 in "quality and coordination of its elected leadership." He noted that Houston's mayor would be in office for the entire bid process as a reason for the city's high score in that area.

"We think Mayor Daley is a terrific leader," Ueberroth said after the Wednesday news conference announcing Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco remained in contention.

Daley said he was "delighted" by the committee's decision.

"We are honored to be a part of this process, and Chicago is committed to working with the USOC to develop a plan that can secure the necessary 60 international votes to bring the Olympic Games to this great city," he said.

Daley acknowledged that he first must win over a U.S. committee whose members include four Californians.

"We can count votes," he quipped. "We believe we have the best proposal."

The decision was based on evaluations filed by four technical experts, informal international polling about whether 2016 is a good time for a U.S. bid and which city would stand the best chance of being selected by the International Olympic Committee.

The evaluations gave each city an overall score. Although the tallies were not revealed, the Tribune has learned Chicago scored remarkably well in the evaluation of its plan and surprisingly well in the international polling, which weighed four times as much as any other factor in the evaluation.

"I heard from various people in the Chicago bid they didn't feel they would do that well internationally," said Bob Ctvrtlik, USOC vice president for international relations. "Chicago was strong internationally."

USOC officials insisted the question of whether to have a 2016 bidder has not been resolved. That decision likely will be made by the end of 2006. The USOC must submit the name of its bid city to the IOC by a date yet to be specified next spring.

"The fact we are taking three cities forward reflects the optimism we've heard in our [international] polling," Ctvrtlik said. "Of 100 [iOC] voters, we had only three who said the U.S. should not submit a bid for 2016."

Ueberroth emphasized all of the cities' initial Olympic proposals needed significant revisions.

"None has an acceptable program we could take to the International Olympic Committee. None," Ueberroth said.

The USOC undoubtedly will tell Chicago to drop its idea of having Opening and Closing Ceremonies commence in Soldier Field and an adjacent temporary stadium.

"We have to talk to Chicago about the two-stadium plan," Ctvrtlik said.

"Some of the proposals put forth by Chicago are not in line with international standards at this point. We feel that given feedback, given more work, and assuming that political will is there, they can revise their plans to be satisfactory."

The experts involved in the evaluation process were George Hirthler, who has advised the successful bids of Atlanta (summer 1996), Beijing (summer 2008) and Vancouver (winter 2010); Jerry Anderson, senior partner at HOK, a specialist in venue operations and Games plan design; Rick Ludwig, a member of the IOC's 2010 evaluation panel; and Sharon Kingman, a telecommunications and broadcast operations specialist.

They rated 15 areas of each city's preliminary proposal, including Olympic Stadium with a minimum seating capacity of 75,000; Olympic Village to house a minimum of 15,000 athletes and officials; media centers; financing of the bid; infrastructure requirements; public opinion; price controls; labor agreements, bid committee structure; government support; and capital investment.

Chicago proposed funding all its sports venue construction with approximately $700 million in private funds, including $200 million for a temporary Olympic stadium directly south of Soldier Field. The Chicago plan also called for private developers to build a $1.5 billion Olympic Village to be used as commercial and residential space after the Games.

According to sources familiar with those plans, Chicago says it has commitments of $5 million to finance the bid in its domestic phase and assurances it can raise another $20 million from the private sector for the international phase of the bid.

The city's plan also says Olympic-generated revenue, such as tickets, sponsorship, TV rights and marketing, would be used to operate the Games and not for capital investment in facilities that will have long-term use. Atlanta angered many in the IOC by using Olympic revenue to build an Olympic Stadium later turned over to the Atlanta Braves.

Both Los Angeles, host of the 1932 and 1984 Olympic Games, and San Francisco were U.S. bidders for the 2012 Olympics. Los Angeles was eliminated in the first cut, while San Francisco was runner-up to New York. New York went on to a resounding defeat in the IOC vote, finishing fourth of five finalists. London won.

Some think the IOC might be disinclined to give the Games to the same U.S. city for a third time. Neither Chicago nor San Francisco has been an Olympic host. Atlanta (1996) and St. Louis (1904) are the other U.S. cities to have staged the Summer Games.

Is this likely to happen? Will Daley be reelected?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a marvelous way to decide who the final city will be :P

THREE'S A CROWD

RedEye

Published July 27, 2006

OK, so Houston and Philadelphia are out and Chicago, L.A. and San Francisco remain. Let's see how the finalists compare in the fairest of all the measuring tools, the faceoff.

L.A.'s 2016 torch lighting star could be future two-time Academy Award nominee Dakota Fanning.

SAN FRANCISCO's 2016 torch lighting star could be future California governor Bruce Willis.

CHICAGO's 2016 torch lighting star could be … President of the United States, Oprah Winfrey.

WINNER: Chicago. Live your best life.

In CHICAGO we have the Bears.

In L.A. there is no professional football team.

In SAN FRANCISCO they have no professional football team.

WINNER: Chicago. The 49ers you say? Have you seen them lately?

SAN FRANCISCO was home to the first Gay Games.

CHICAGO was home to the most recent Gay Games.

L.A. has West Hollywood.

WINNER: Chicago. We're here, we're clear, get used to it.

CHICAGO is near a lake.

SAN FRANCISCO is near an ocean.

L.A. is nearly in an ocean.

WINNER: Chicago. No sharks = safer wind-surfing.

L.A. has had the Olympics twice (1932 and 1984).

SAN FRANCISCO has never had the Olympics.

CHICAGO has never had the Olympics.

WINNER: Two-way tie. First one to say, "We love the USOC" wins and WELOVETHEUSOC! Chicago wins.

L.A. has Randy Newman's "I Love L.A."

SAN FRANCISCO has Tony Bennett's "I Left My Heart in San Francisco."

CHICAGO has Wilco's "Via Chicago."

WINNER: Chicago. The other two are older than dirt.

OVERALL WINNER: You saw this coming—it's Chicago in a landslide. Was the election rigged? To be honest, we don't like the implication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, in terms of city-theme songs, I think Chicago not only has "My Kinda Town" but "I Just Blew in from the Windy City" (from "Calamity Jane"); and I'm sure they could appropriate "All That Jazz" from the "Chicago" musical.

SF"s "I Left My Heart" is kinda tired, even for one living in the Bay Area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...