Chicago Plan Changed

[LA84]

Well the point is that the stadium really won't be temporary. Most of it will come down, that's true, but Daley and Ryan have both said, that it will either become a theater and centerpiece for a new park, or will turn into a 10,000 seat athletic training center, much like London will have after the Olympic leave.

It will be useful after, so the stadium will have to have some permenant features, as well as mix parts of the temporary fixtures to it.

Where did you see that they were going to do something similar to London? I haven't seen that report.

[SOlympiadsW]

Wait 'til Beijing is done. It's still in it's skeletal phase. IMO what's there is pretty awesome.

I lived outside Chicago for 4 years. I understand the value of the lakefront. My point is that any temporary stadium is likely to look like a tin shed in comparison to recent Olympics (Sydney, Athens, Beijing, London). Oddly enough, the most disappointing recent stadium was in Atlanta. Before that LA, Seoul, Barcelona were all pretty slick.

I fear that Chicago would be willing to put up with a "tin shed" if they know it's going to be dismantled. Hell, they're putting up with Soldier Field and it's permanent. I'm sorry, but I still have zero confidence in the idea of a temporary stadium. It still feels like a 99-Cent Store approach to the Olympics and I suspect the IOC will agree with me. It's going to take some pretty exciting graphic renderings to change that opinion.

I agree with you 100% here....we'll just have to see I guess

[ChicagoFan90]

Where did you see that they were going to do something similar to London? I haven't seen that report.

Saw it a few months ago in a Tribune article discussing what then were the 3 possibilities for an Olympic Stadium, back even before the La Jolla meetings.

Still think it's in the proposals, but who knows, I could be wrong.

[Athensfan]

The United States doesn't need to prove anything to anyone when it comes to hosting an Olympics. Bejing, much like Berlin and Moscow before them, will attempt to use the Olympics to showcase what they perceive as their emergence as a world power, using billions of taxpayer dollars to do that. If history is any indication, this could be Chinas grand moment before their fall. We'll see.

Any country that builds a multi million dollar stadium just to host the Olympics without having a good use for it afterwards needs to have their head examined IMHO. In the current crop of U.S. candidates only San Francisco has that need. But a stadium is only one element of what it takes to host a games.

As for a "tin can" - visit Chicago sometime. As it is world reknown for it's architecture you can count on any temporary structure being dazzling and innovative.

First, the Chinese emergence as a world power is not "perception" -- it's reality.

Second, the US does have something to prove as an Olympic host. No we don't need to demonstrate our economic muscle and prosperity, but we do have to prove that we take the international community seriously. Part of how we would do that is with a high-quality Olympic bid. Throwing a classy party says that you value your guests. The IOC needs to be convinced that the USA has high regard for the Games and the international community. A temporary stadium doesn't communicate high regard; it communicates "we're trying to get away with as little as possible."

Third, I completely agree that there's no point in building a venue that won't be used. If Chicago doesn't need an Olympic stadium and can't meet the established international standards for an Olympic stadium, maybe they shouldn't be bidding. It's true that one stadium does not an Olympics make, however the stadium is the centerpiece of the Games. Ceremonies, cauldron, athletics, etc. It is BY FAR the most photographed venue of the Games. Effectively, it functions as a kind of signature -- maybe even more so than the logo. To plan on dismantling that signature is to say to the IOC "Olympic legacy isn't all that important to us. You aren't all that important to us."

Finally, as I said, I lived near Chicago for four years and traveled into the city regularly. Of course it has fantastic architecture. But just because a city has some wonderful buildings doesn't mean all of them are and it certainly doesn't make any guarantees about the future (note Soldier Field). The truth is Soldier Field was more of a disappointment than Chicago realized. It presented the perfect opportunity to create an Olympic-quality stadium and they botched it. No, Chicago doesn't need two giant stadiums right next two each other. They only needed one -- a remodeled Soldier Field that had the necessary style and seating capacity to host an Olympics. They blew it.

I love the city. Starting 10 years ago I thought that Chicago would be a fantastic Olympic host. If it weren't for the stadium issue I would be behind them all the way.

[baron-pierreIV]

First, the Chinese emergence as a world power is not "perception" -- it's reality.

Second, the US does have something to prove as an Olympic host. No we don't need to demonstrate our economic muscle and prosperity, but we do have to prove that we take the international community seriously. Part of how we would do that is with a high-quality Olympic bid. Throwing a classy party says that you value your guests. The IOC needs to be convinced that the USA has high regard for the Games and the international community. A temporary stadium doesn't communicate high regard; it communicates "we're trying to get away with as little as possible."

Third, I completely agree that there's no point in building a venue that won't be used. If Chicago doesn't need an Olympic stadium and can't meet the established international standards for an Olympic stadium, maybe they shouldn't be bidding. It's true that one stadium does not an Olympics make, however the stadium is the centerpiece of the Games. Ceremonies, cauldron, athletics, etc. It is BY FAR the most photographed venue of the Games. Effectively, it functions as a kind of signature -- maybe even more so than the logo. To plan on dismantling that signature is to say to the IOC "Olympic legacy isn't all that important to us. You aren't all that important to us."

Agreed, Athens. Here's the irony of it all as seen from the eyes of some of the lesser thinking IOC members: They're the richest country in the world; and they can't afford a brand new stadium? Wakindda host is that? True.

Therefore, I think we should build a magnificent stadium AND THEN send the bill to the IOC, or deduct it from their shares of the TV revenues. That would seem to be an equitable and another innovative solution. Whaddya think?

[Athensfan]

BRILLIANT! Let's give Jaques a call...

[dmfcsf]

I forget whether it was on these boards or elsewhere, but somebody said that Athens' CLosing Ceremony would "...blow the roof off of their stadium..." Which got me to thinking about Chicago's 'temp stadium' -- if they are really going through with it, and the IOC buys it.

Well, the finale of the Chicago Closing Ceremony, after the Olympic flag has exited and the torch doused, would be the Wrecking the Stadium number. At the count of 3, the audience can rip apart anything they want of the stadium and take it home as a souvenir!! And that would be the quickest 'dismantling of a stadium in history' -- another Olympic first!!

Wow...that would be the most awesome Closing Ceremony ever...

Seriously though, if Chicago is that desperate for the Olympics that they'll spend hundreds of millions of dollars on something that will be used for 2 weeks and then torn down, and the IOC will let them, then they should do it. Better there than here...

[LA84]

Better there than here...

Well yes, we already know that. Now we just have to convince the IOC of that

[Fox334]

Well, you could tax the stadium to Bill Gate ^^.

[LA84]

Frankly I think that Oprah should build it. We can call it the Harpo Dome or soemthing

[Jim856796]

Why can't they reduce the size of the "temporary" stadium to a 25000-capacity stadium after the Games like London?

[Athensfan]

Why can't they reduce the size of the "temporary" stadium to a 25000-capacity stadium after the Games like London?

Jim --

I agree with you. I think London has the right idea. However, London needs an athletics stadium and they will be able to make good use of a 25,000 seat venue post-Olympics. Chicago doesn't really need a track like that -- not with Northwestern nearby. Chicago wants to have it's cake and eat it too. They want the Olympics and they want a beautiful lakeside park that will serve the nearby booming residential areas without obstructing the view of the water.

If Chicago had gotten Soldier Field right the first time around, this would not be an issue and I believe they would be the hands-down favorite to win the 2016 race. IMO, Chicago's best move would also be the most painful: Admit that Soldier Field was a debacle, rip it apart and turn it into an Olympic-quality stadium. The NFL wouldn't be too happy. It would hurt all the way around, but it's the option that makes the most sense and would communicate the most commitment to the IOC. Of course, it's never going to happen.

Chicago will not be willing to overhaul Soldier Field. A temporary stadium will come off as being tacky.

IMO this is the single reason why the USOC should not go with Chicago. I think the temporary stadium is this bid's achilles heel and though it might survive several rounds of voting, it won't make it to the finish line. The USOC should have learned the importance of the central stadium from NYC 2012. We'll see if they have.

Let's keep this in mind: at this point the US cities are not racing against each other. They are trying to achieve the quality that will all but guarantee international success. It's possible that none of them will be able to do that.