Jump to content

Cities Cut-official


Recommended Posts

Chicago & Kansas City shouldn't even be in the same sentence. What have you been smoking. Chicago & San Francisco are at the very least on par on the international level. Anything else to give one or the other the edge is pretty much being partial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 141
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Chicago & Kansas City shouldn't even be in the same sentence. What have you been smoking. Chicago & San Francisco are at the very least on par on the international level. Anything else to give one or the other the edge is pretty much being partial.

May I be allowed to give a British perspective? Here in the UK,if people were asked to name the three most famous US cities,many would include San Francisco rather than Chicago.I just tried it out on a member of my family and she replied after a few seconds of consideration,"Washington,New York and San Francisco".Hardly scientific I know,but it tends to confirm for me that Chicago doesn't yet quite have the international profile and recognition in the world that San Francisco does even though Chicago has the higher business and economic profile!

Just a passing observation from a disinterested Brit! B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baron...you had me in your corner with your response right up until you put Chicago and Kansas City in the same breath. ;)

All of the responses notwithstanding, I still have a hard time understanding how we can completely discount the simple international importance of Chicago to the world, business-wise. When the committee starts looking at the three plans they are going to have to wonder about funding these games on a localized level without much, if any public money. Chicago and LA have very large corporate and philanthropic bases to draw on. There is no doubt that Chicago could get the private dollars necessary. I am not so sure that San Francisco comes close...I could be wrong.

You would think that a city's international business profile weighs heavily in the "international points" area (even if it is unsaid) with the IOC because we all know that what it really comes down to is dollars in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I be allowed to give a British perspective? Here in the UK,if people were asked to name the three most famous US cities,many would include San Francisco rather than Chicago.I just tried it out on a member of my family and she replied after a few seconds of consideration,"Washington,New York and San Francisco".Hardly scientific I know,but it tends to confirm for me that Chicago doesn't yet quite have the international profile and recognition in the world that San Francisco does even though Chicago has the higher business and economic profile!

Just a passing observation from a disinterested Brit! B)

Your family member didn't list L.A. Seems like it would be highly subjective then, because many think L.A. would definitely be on the list, moreso than San Francisco or Washington.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baron...you had me in your corner with your response right up until you put Chicago and Kansas City in the same breath. ;)

All of the responses notwithstanding, I still have a hard time understanding how we can completely discount the simple international importance of Chicago to the world, business-wise. When the committee starts looking at the three plans they are going to have to wonder about funding these games on a localized level without much, if any public money. Chicago and LA have very large corporate and philanthropic bases to draw on. There is no doubt that Chicago could get the private dollars necessary. I am not so sure that San Francisco comes close...I could be wrong.

You would think that a city's international business profile weighs heavily in the "international points" area (even if it is unsaid) with the IOC because we all know that what it really comes down to is dollars in the end.

Cities always promise that no money will be taken from the residents for the Olympics. That almost never happens because of the overruns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why...in anyone's vivd imagination would the committee ever award the bid rights to San Francisco? It is a politcal nightmare out there everyday. Chicago (much to the chagrin of many) is still a well-oiled, machine run city. Their would be no referendums here if the Daley Juggernaut decides to do something with public money

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, but if you were asked to name 10 top cities in North America and 10 top cities in Europe, what would they say?

I doubt top Austrian city Vienna would make the European list, but third ranked American city Chicago would probably make the North American list.

It's not like Chicago is Bangor, Maine or Eugene, Oregon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of the responses notwithstanding, I still have a hard time understanding how we can completely discount the simple international importance of Chicago to the world, business-wise. When the committee starts looking at the three plans they are going to have to wonder about funding these games on a localized level without much, if any public money. Chicago and LA have very large corporate and philanthropic bases to draw on. There is no doubt that Chicago could get the private dollars necessary. I am not so sure that San Francisco comes close...I could be wrong.

Something to bear in mind when discounting the use of public money in financing the Games;

A quote from NewYorkGames.org:

"The IOC requires a public guarantee for organizing committee overruns, venues, the village, the press center ... everything. Thinking 2009 will be like 1978, SCCOG will only "guarantee" the opposite: "these games come at no cost to the taxpayers." Unless this requirement is met, the USOC's bid city will be dead on arrival. Again."

http://www.newyorkgames.org/news/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prior to 1992, if you had asked me to name the top 10 cities in Europe, Barcelona would not have been on the list.

Just food for thought . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ChiIn2016

This "rookie" is obviously biased toward Chicago. It is one of the world's great undiscovered cities. After multiple visits to the premier cities of London, Paris, Rome, Athens, Barcelona, New York, etc., Chicago rates with all of them. That is why I selected it to be my home town nine years ago. We would love to have the world come to visit us, and believe that the world will have a great time coming here.

Chicago is set to step out onto the world stage and dispell the myth that it is "fly over" territory to those on the east and west coasts. But, as I told one New Yorker that I met in Athens this past May after her "fly over" remark during our introduction, "we would rather be fly over than fly into."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With my fellow Chicagoan's comment about "fly-in" cities notwithstanding, I agree that Chicago is very much ready to welcome the world in 2016. People are talking about the bid here and there is a definite buzz at the moment here in Chicago. If our organizing team can capitalize on this current public support it only makes a Chicago bid that much stronger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, we have 3 very good candidates in Chicago, LA or SF. But as Mr. Ueberroth said, there is nothing at this stage that the USOC can 'present to the IOC.'

Besides, WindyCity, the USOC performed a rather wise and savvy move in polling their int'l colleauges again who will eventually decide the fate of 2016 before moving any farther. I mean the choices came from their mouths -- not something made up by the USOC. You know, you need a little perspective to aprraise this whole thing correctly. And the USOC has been around the block before.

And Ryan, your comments about removing Ueberroth and Cvrtlik -- uhhmm, could you a better job? Do you know anyone with their experience and contacts -- just because NYC shot itself in the foot -- to run the USOC?

I hate to say this again, but NYC went in for 1-shot. I am just surprised that the USOC did not stick to its guns 3 years ago on insisting that whomever ran in 2005 (for 2012) should be lined up to run again for 2016 if 2005 failed. I think the NYC'ers just strong-armed the USOC into thinking they could win it in one try; and that's why the USOC pretty much told 'em: "...you had your chance and you did not play it 'our' way, now we have to again find someone else." :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides, WindyCity, the USOC performed a rather wise and savvy move in polling their int'l colleauges again who will eventually decide the fate of 2016 before moving any farther. I mean the choices came from their mouths -- not something made up by the USOC. You know, you need a little perspective to aprraise this whole thing correctly. And the USOC has been around the block before.

I have never claimed to be an expert on the Olympic bidding process...I leave that to others on this message board. The USOC has to make the decision...either move forward with one of the three cities or decide not to bid...with all of the political wranglings that San Francisco is known for (including many that you all have presented in these very forums) why would you want to endure the potential "black eyes" you might endure as a host nation by choosing them. Now I am not saying that there would be any political pitfalls if SF is chosen to represent...but there is more of a chance that local politics would be a problem in SF than in a place like Chicago (just my political science background coming through :) )...does that make Chicago the best choice...not necessarily...do I think that this is something that the USOC will consider...absolutely. It would be rather irresponsible of them not to. Further, there are already references in news articles and posts that say they have made indications about politics...ala Daley needs to be mayor through the bid process for Chicago to be viable, etc.

I do not believe that any of their international colleagues would be tuned in to this particular issue...and why should they this early. This is an issue that the USOC will have to debate in their own circles and address before presenting an American bid city to the IOC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never claimed to be an expert on the Olympic bidding process...I leave that to others on this message board. The USOC has to make the decision...either move forward with one of the three cities or decide not to bid...with all of the political wranglings that San Francisco is known for (including many that you all have presented in these very forums) why would you want to endure the potential "black eyes" you might endure as a host nation by choosing them. Now I am not saying that there would be any political pitfalls if SF is chosen to represent...but there is more of a chance that local politics would be a problem in SF than in a place like Chicago (just my political science background coming through :) )...does that make Chicago the best choice...not necessarily...do I think that this is something that the USOC will consider...absolutely. It would be rather irresponsible of them not to. Further, there are already references in news articles and posts that say they have made indications about politics...ala Daley needs to be mayor through the bid process for Chicago to be viable, etc.

I do not believe that any of their international colleagues would be tuned in to this particular issue...and why should they this early. This is an issue that the USOC will have to debate in their own circles and address before presenting an American bid city to the IOC.

It is, and why are you so impatient? This is a process by the USOC has chosen to go through. Besides, for a stadium plan, I would give it to a new, permanent one that San Francisco has unveiled vs. a 'temporary' one that is an untested concept among IOC voters who tend to go with more grandiose, permanent structures.

Ever heard of 'playing one vs. the other'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are the odds stacked against Chicago for a possible 2016 nomination?

"Ueberroth seems determined to make sure Los Angeles or San Francisco is the American city bidding for the 2016 Olympics."

U.S. Olympic Committee Is California-Dreaming

The New York Sun column

Evan Weiner

Major League Baseball owners who were around in the late 1980s probably won't be too surprised to find out that Peter Ueberroth is at it again. Ueberroth, who became MLB Commissioner after running the 1984 Los Angeles Summer Games, sometime in late 1985 or 1986 convinced the Lords of Baseball not to bid against one another in free agency. Ueberroth was then gone when the players won a $280 million judgment against the owners who were found guilty of collusion in not bidding for players. Now, as the chairman of the United States Olympic Committee Board of Directors, Ueberroth has reformed and streamlined the committee's bid process system and, in doing so, may have further broken an already broken and highly politicized apparatus.

Ueberroth seems determined to make sure Los Angeles or San Francisco is the American city bidding for the 2016 Olympics. On Wednesday, Ueberroth and his board eliminated Houston and Philadelphia from the race to be the U.S. representative. It should be no surprise that Philadelphia and Houston were sent home. Ueberroth is determined to run a West Coast city, and it is hard to eliminate Chicago at this early stage.

Four of the 11 on the committee's board of directors, including Ueberroth, live in Los Angeles and all are members of the International Olympic Committee. Even though Ueberroth's committee is West Coast-based, they chose to look at non-West Coast cities first in their initial tour potential contenders, which gave West Coast bidders more time to prepare their proposals.

On May 3, the USOC Board of Directors gave Houston five days notice, Philadelphia six days notice, and Chicago seven days notice that they were going to tour those cities.Both Los Angeles and San Francisco had 15 days to prepare for the committee.

The board's vice president, Bob Ctvrtlik, a three-time Olympic Volleyball player, is from Long Beach, Calif. An USOC's board of director-member, Anita DeFrantz, lives in Santa Monica, Calif. and was the vice president of the Olympic Villages in the 1984 Los Angeles Summer Olympics. Another director, Stephanie Streeter, went to school at Stanford and has long-time business ties to the Bay Area. James Easton was a member of the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Committee and was the mayor of Athletes Village at UCLA.A strategic adviser, George Hirthler, was part of San Francisco's 2012 bid.

Yet Los Angeles and San Francisco may have the weakest hands in the five-city tournament that is now down to three. With the exception of the area's two indoor arenas, almost every one of Los Angeles' potential venues are old and not up to IOC standards. Neither the Los Angeles Coliseum nor the Rose Bowl is suitable for the National Football League let alone the Olympics, although the NFL is trying to renovate the Coliseum.

San Francisco doesn't have an Olympic Stadium either, and one doesn't appear to be in the cards. The San Francisco 49ers ownership is now looking at building a stadium in Santa Clara, Calif. If they build there, the Olympic Village and the needed hotels, motels, and transportation would be far away from San Francisco.

Philadelphia and Houston both have new football stadiums that could have served as Olympic venues.Houston hosted the 2004 Super Bowl, and Philadelphia has a state-of-the-art football facility for the Eagles. Both Houston and Philadelphia have hotel rooms and transportation systems, but neither has the acclaim as an "international" city, said a source close to the selection process. The IOC liked the cachet of having New York, London, Paris, Madrid, and Moscow all in the 2012 race. London ultimately got the nod.

The IOC will start reviewing bids for the 2016 Summer Games sometime in '07. Japan will choose between Tokyo and Fukuoka on August 30 as its representative in the field. Tokyo is considered an "international" city and hosted the 1964 Summer Games. Montreal, St. Petersburg (the site of the recent G–8 meetings), Madrid, Spain, Rio de Janeiro, Dubai, Tel Aviv, and Berlin are among the areas interested in hosting in 2016 Summer Games. The IOC once again may be looking for a star power city in 2016. Los Angeles, San Francisco, and even Chicago, can be considered international superstar cities.

The USOC streamlined its selection committee in part to eliminate potential conflicts of interests like the one that arose in the final vote for 2012 when New York and San Francisco competed to get bid designation.

Roland Betts, the founder and chairman of Chelsea Piers, was a voting member of the USOC and was one of the delegates who in 2003 decided between New York and San Francisco. Betts's Chelsea Piers was less than 10 blocks away from the proposed West Side Olympic stadium. Betts had no problems taking part in that vote even though it appeared to be a definite conflict of interest. Ueberroth's job was to reform the voting process and make sure there were no future dilemmas similar to Betts's.

The USOC will designate its host city bidder next year. The IOC votes on the 2016 Games host city in 2009. The big question now is whether or not Chicago will get a legitimate chance at the Games from Ueberroth and his board in the bid process.

July 28, 2006 11:12 AM

http://www.newyorkgames.org/news/archives/006894.html#more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhmmm, I'm half-way reading thru the above article and already I find it a very biased, unfounded, entirely personal speculative piece. Obviously, the writer has an ax to grind.

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

Just finished reading it; and realized that it's from The New York Sun -- a publication I've never heard of. :blink: Obviously, it is a hatchet job by a 'hack' writer who can't even get hired by the likes of The New York Times or even the New York Post. Really specious, shady reportage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must admit I was a bit sceptical when I read this statement:

"...Montreal, St. Petersburg (the site of the recent G–8 meetings), Madrid, Spain, Rio de Janeiro, Dubai, Tel Aviv, and Berlin are among the areas interested in hosting in 2016 Summer Games..."

Montreal,St.Petersburg,Dubai,Tel Aviv??? First I've heard of any of these names!!

Either this guy has impressive insider knowledge of which cities are interested in 2016,or he's talking through his you-know-what!!! :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is; and how can he impugn that Ueberroth and Cvrtlik (even though they coincidentally both happen to be Californians, as other members of the USOC board) are rigging the whole thing for a SF or LA choice? I mean he is so naive to think that this board can be so blatantly partisan and would go thru the charade of lining up the beauty contestants but already have the winner in mind. He also does an injustice to Chicago.

In a way, he kinda reminds me of some voices on this board. But I wouldn't give that soul another moment's thought. Plainly, he is quite self-serving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Locally, I think Chicago wins but internationally, I think SF has the edge.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0903702.html

Here's an interesting link I found after a few minutes Googling.

Top U.S. States and Cities Visited by Overseas Travelers, 2003

1) New York (4.4 M)

2) Los Angeles (2.2 M)

...

5) San Francisco (1.6M)

...

9) Chicago (721K)

#2 is boosted by Disneyland and Hollywood.

#3 and 4 (Miami and Orlando) are no doubt assisted by cruise traffic to and from the Carribbean and Latin America and DisneyWorld.

#5 San Francisco is on its own. The attraction is the City itself -- and perhaps Napa.

#1... well.. no explanation necessary there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0903702.html

Here's an interesting link I found after a few minutes Googling.

Top U.S. States and Cities Visited by Overseas Travelers, 2003

1) New York (4.4 M)

2) Los Angeles (2.2 M)

...

5) San Francisco (1.6M)

...

9) Chicago (721K)

#2 is boosted by Disneyland and Hollywood.

#3 and 4 (Miami and Orlando) are no doubt assisted by cruise traffic to and from the Carribbean and Latin America and DisneyWorld.

#5 San Francisco is on its own. The attraction is the City itself -- and perhaps Napa.

#1... well.. no explanation necessary there.

And understandably so; the top 5 are gateway cities. They are the first stop of many overseas travelers coming in. They are also home to very large migrant populations who, extrapolating similarly, have many relations abroad, who, of course, would first see their relations in these cities before, say setting off inland to see Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, Chicago, or New Orleans

For San Fran, I'd say, after the City itself, visitors then go to: Carmel, Monterey, Big Sur; then Napa, San Luis Obispo - San Simeon; Lake Tahoe and Yosemite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the funniest line was; "Los Angeles, San Francisco, and 'even' Chicago, can be considered international superstar cities", like if he were talking about a city like Milwaukee or Minneapolis. Figures only a pompous New Yorker would say something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of the responses notwithstanding, I still have a hard time understanding how we can completely discount the simple international importance of Chicago to the world, business-wise. When the committee starts looking at the three plans they are going to have to wonder about funding these games on a localized level without much, if any public money. Chicago and LA have very large corporate and philanthropic bases to draw on. There is no doubt that Chicago could get the private dollars necessary. I am not so sure that San Francisco comes close...I could be wrong.

You would think that a city's international business profile weighs heavily in the "international points" area (even if it is unsaid) with the IOC because we all know that what it really comes down to is dollars in the end.

One would think that San Francisco had no effect on international or national business at all. Let's see... the world's largest clothing and fashion company is headquartered here. One of the nation's largest banks is located here. The US Biotech center is located here. One of the world's largest engineering firms is here. One of the largest brokerage firms is located here. And this is not counting the scores of Technology and Biotechnology companies that make their home either in San Francisco or in the Bay Area.

San Francisco's international stature has been long standing -- whether it's the cable cars, the large Italian and Latin and Chinese and Japanese communities, corporate and political ties to Ho Chi Minh City (the only US link to Vietnam), Manila, and Beijing, the food, the internationally recognized and admired San Francisco Ballet and San Francisco Symphony, the internationally recognized buildings (Pyramid, Alcatraz) and landmarks (Golden Gate). And then there's the world reknowned food and cuisine in San Francisco.

When it comes down to it, San Francisco is a true international city. It's streets and neighborhoods are European in nature. There is a large immigrant population that call San Francisco home. By nature, San Francisco is international.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhmmm, I'm half-way reading thru the above article and already I find it a very biased, unfounded, entirely personal speculative piece. Obviously, the writer has an ax to grind.

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

Just finished reading it; and realized that it's from The New York Sun -- a publication I've never heard of. :blink: Obviously, it is a hatchet job by a 'hack' writer who can't even get hired by the likes of The New York Times or even the New York Post. Really specious, shady reportage.

Ouch! I guess you never read my six-month weekly column about NYC2012 that ran in 2005 in the New York Sun. Actually, it's a very well-read and respected newspaper that is circulated only in Manhattan (perhaps why you may not have heard of it). It is well-followed on the Internet and has an editorial affiliation with the Chicago Sun-Times.

I've never spoken to that specific journalist but I must admit he raises a couple of interesting points. He's a sports columnist for the Sun and has written some decent stuff in the past - I wouldn't summarily discount him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One would think that San Francisco had no effect on international or national business at all. Let's see... the world's largest clothing and fashion company is headquartered here. One of the nation's largest banks is located here. The US Biotech center is located here. One of the world's largest engineering firms is here. One of the largest brokerage firms is located here. And this is not counting the scores of Technology and Biotechnology companies that make their home either in San Francisco or in the Bay Area.

San Francisco's international stature has been long standing -- whether it's the cable cars, the large Italian and Latin and Chinese and Japanese communities, corporate and political ties to Ho Chi Minh City (the only US link to Vietnam), Manila, and Beijing, the food, the internationally recognized and admired San Francisco Ballet and San Francisco Symphony, the internationally recognized buildings (Pyramid, Alcatraz) and landmarks (Golden Gate). And then there's the world reknowned food and cuisine in San Francisco.

When it comes down to it, San Francisco is a true international city. It's streets and neighborhoods are European in nature. There is a large immigrant population that call San Francisco home. By nature, San Francisco is international.

In many ways, San Francisco is like a junior New York. It's a smaller (slightly poorer) New York but on a less daunting and more photogenic scale -- with the hills; the Bay, the unique microclimates. Even the homeless love San Francisco - the City of St. Francis of Assisi! :lol:

But SF wields a much lower economic clout than CHicago. SF is still hqrts to some giant American cos., but many have also left (Chevron, Weyerhauser, PacBell). As I said elsewhere, I think Chicago can raise the $20 million warchest in 1 week's time; it may take SF more than a month to do that, and I am sure they will have to ask some help from LA-based companies. If Chevron and Bank of America were still in the City, raising the $20 mil would be cinch.

Ouch! I guess you never read my six-month weekly column about NYC2012 that ran in 2005 in the New York Sun. Actually, it's a very well-read and respected newspaper that is circulated only in Manhattan (perhaps why you may not have heard of it). It is well-followed on the Internet and has an editorial affiliation with the Chicago Sun-Times.

I've never spoken to that specific journalist but I must admit he raises a couple of interesting points. He's a sports columnist for the Sun and has written some decent stuff in the past - I wouldn't summarily discount him.

Sorry. But this Sun wasn't around when I still lived in NYC. But about those 'questionable' coincidences he raises (that the USOC Board members are mainly West Coast-based), I mean LA84 and I saw that -- and while Todd did conjecture that would seem to skew it in LA's favor; they are well aware of the importance of the task at hand; and I would think they are far above being motivated solely by hometown favoritism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In many ways, San Francisco is like a junior New York. It's a smaller (slightly poorer) New York but on a less daunting and more photogenic scale -- with the hills; the Bay, the unique microclimates. Even the homeless love San Francisco - the City of St. Francis of Assisi! :lol:

But SF wields a much lower economic clout than CHicago. SF is still hqrts to some giant American cos., but many have also left (Chevron, Weyerhauser, PacBell). As I said elsewhere, I think Chicago can raise the $20 million warchest in 1 week's time; it may take SF more than a month to do that, and I am sure they will have to ask some help from LA-based companies. If Chevron and Bank of America were still in the City, raising the $20 mil would be cinch.

THe homeless loves SF because the City gives them free money. :angry:

And speaking of St. Francis of Assissi, SF now has close ties to the Vatican, as the #2 guy there was the former Bishop. And the City has been a favorite of teh Vatican.

Your'e right, SF is like New York Jr. The buildings are half the size, the people are friendlier, and it's definitely not as frenetic.

SF may no longer hold the economic clout it had in the past, but it's not exactly a financial wimp either. Chevron left because they needed more room. PacBell was acquired by AT&T. BofA may not have HQ in SF anymore, but they still have a good portion of its securities business here. Charles Schwab is still here, as is WellsFargo and Providian. There's also Gap, Levis, William-Sonoma, Macys West. There's McKesson and Bechtel and PG&E. It would have been cool if SF was able to attract United away from Chicago... but that didnt' happen.

Chicago might be able to raise the money in 1 week... but San Francisco can raise the funds. It won't be a problem. Might take them longer, but it'll get done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...