Chicago's Revised 2016 Plan

[LA84]

Change in plans for Chicago Olympics bid

By Philip Hersh

Tribune Olympics reporter

Published September 20, 2006, 2:00 PM CDT

In a dramatic change from its preliminary plans, Chicago would have the main stadium for a 2016 Olympics in Washington Park on the city's south side.

Chicago bid committee officials were announcing the change at a press conference this afternoon at the park.

In its original idea, the city talked of using both Soldier Field and a temporary stadium just south of Soldier field for opening and closing ceremonies and track and field.

Criticism of that idea by the U.S. and international Olympic officials led Chicago officials to refocus their efforts on a single stadium. The lakefront site was abandoned because the space south of Soldier Field and on Northerly Island was considered too small for what Chicago committee chairman Patrick Ryan calls "a state of the art stadium."

The new plan, to be submitted to the U.S. Olympic Committee on Friday, calls for a 95,000-seat structure that would be reduced to 10,000 seat track stadium after the Olympics.

"We looked at a lot of options, but we really wanted an appropriate stadium for today's track and field requirements in the Olympics," Ryan said. "This site gives us a lot more flexibility."

Chicago, San Francisco and Los Angeles are finalists to be U.S. bid city for 2016. The USOC has yet to decide whether it will submit a bid, a decision that will depend on the quality of the bids.

Ryan said the Washington Park site will allow the Olympics to leave a sports and urban legacy in the area.

A major aspect of the plan, Ryan said, is the revitalization of the Frederick Law Olmsted-designed park.

The scaled-down stadium would be suited for local, national and international track and field events. The stadium would also be available to the community for concerts and cultural events.

Ryan declined to give a price tag for the facility. The new stadium that had been planned for south of Soldier Field was to cost $200 million.

Ryan insisted having the stadium in Washington Park would not detract from the city's theme of having a compact Games in the center of the city. Washington Park, about six miles south of Soldier Field, is on the west end of the Midway Plaisance, which connects it with Jackson Park.

The Olympic plan also would put field hockey in the park with two artificial turf fields that later could be used for high school football.

"This gives us a much better opportunity for a real sports legacy," Ryan said.

Ryan said the appeal of giving TV broadcasters lakefront pictures will not be lost. Several venues will remain on the lakefront in Chicago's new plan.

Chicago will not reveal other details of the new plan until after it is sent to the USOC.

This is an awesome plan. Washington and Jackson Parks are two of the city's most beautiful and sight of the 1893 Worlds Fair. It is only like 3-4 miles from McCormick Place and Soldier Field.

[Fox334]

Inded, it seems that Chicago is done with there stadium problemes. 10 000 seams a tad small for the permanent seating (20 000 would have probably been bether), but the plan is exiting again.

Now, if only Toronto would jump in the fray, a Toronto v.s. Chicago bid would be quite interesting...

[Adister]

That's Good, i hope that this will strighthen there bid, and maybe to a victory as the US Candidate, and maybe ever the host city.

[Stu]

A much better idea .......... damn!

[baron-pierreIV]

Finally, they listened (to me). This really gives their bid a lot more credibility. And it wasn't so much that it was going to be beside Soldier Field as it was a stop-gap remedy. Not at all appealing considering Tokyo will kill a lot of fish in their bay to build something that will suck in the IOC. The questions then are:

- what will the support stadium be for this new one?

- And with this new stadium, will they go for the 2011 IAAF Championships -- of which I haven't been hearing much about the current edition happening in Athens.

Also, Chicago, better start dreaming up on a catchy new theme song. I don't think "My Kinda Town"'s gonna quite cut it. You will need something more punchy!!

[arwebb]

Inded, it seems that Chicago is done with there stadium problemes. 10 000 seams a tad small for the permanent seating (20 000 would have probably been bether), but the plan is exiting again.

Now, if only Toronto would jump in the fray, a Toronto v.s. Chicago bid would be quite interesting...

I'd say 10,000 isn't just a tad small. It's too small.

[baron-pierreIV]

I'd say 10,000 isn't just a tad small. It's too small.

They could still up that figure, especially if they will, say, find an MLS team to make that its new home. This is just the first set of figures released; those always get tweaked and refined.

[LA84]

I'd say 10,000 isn't just a tad small. It's too small.

Some thought London's reduction to 25,000 of their Olympic Stadium was a travesty as well - but it passed muster.

[schwerve]

I'd say 10,000 isn't just a tad small. It's too small.

it may be too small for the concept of maintaining the olympic legacy but it needs to work well in the setting of a olmstead park, bridgeview stadium is 20,000 and there's no way you could put that in washington park without completely destroying the character of it.

[arwebb]

Some thought London's reduction to 25,000 of their Olympic Stadium was a travesty as well - but it passed muster.

They weren't alone. I wondered about it, and I'm sure it won't be like that after 2012.

[baron-pierreIV]

They weren't alone. I wondered about it, and I'm sure it won't be like that after 2012.

Well, what really matters is what will play for the 2 weeks of the Olympic Games; and the IOC should like the Chicago plan more than they did Atlanta because they complained that there was no T&F legacy w/ Atlanta, but Chicago is promising them one here. So they should stop carping.

[dave199]

Well, what really matters is what will play for the 2 weeks of the Olympic Games; and the IOC should like the Chicago plan more than they did Atlanta because they complained that there was no T&F legacy w/ Atlanta, but Chicago is promising them one here. So they should stop carping.

That's a good point, it will leave the city with a legacy for T&F but in all honestly, when I hear that an Olympic Stadium which is originally 90,000 in capacity will be reduced to 10,000 after the games, it just sounds bad. Don't winning bid city's build eye catching and spectacle stadiums just for the purpose of hosting an Olympic games? Although, Chicago would not be able to support such a stadium at this time since there would be no use of it post-Olympics but it just feels weird that all that will be left of Chicago's Olympic Stadium will be a tremendously scaled back 10,000 seat stadium used just for T&F. Chicago can say 10 years aftetr 2016 that our big legacy from our Olympic games is our 10,000 seat Track stadium...lol

[Guest ryan04]

Much better, atleast now Chicago has a chance.

[ChicagoFan90]

And at least Chicago is keeping the events in Chicago, and not completley spread around the region like the first version of the plan, which included having the opening and closing ceremonies in Madison.

Though football will probably be held in Wisconsin and Indiana, so Daley can not only extend Metra to Milwaukee, but also Daley's and Barrett's(Mayor of Milwaukee) prized M2 high speed rail project which would go from Madison (Camp Randall Stadium) to Chicago's Union Station.

That would really help my day trips to Chicago. I have IPass, and sometimes use the Hiawatha to get to the loop (1h 30min) trip, but would love having the M2, which would cut my trip by train to an hour.

The Washington Park idea is great, really mirrors London's Stratford Plan, and is bordered on both sides by Metra and the CTA Red Line. And right next to the Midway Plaisance, which could be a long Olympic Park and Plaza, extending for over a mile to the Museum of Science and Industry, Lincoln Park, the Lagoons, and Lake Michigan.

[baron-pierreIV]

That's a good point, it will leave the city with a legacy for T&F but in all honestly, when I hear that an Olympic Stadium which is originally 90,000 in capacity will be reduced to 10,000 after the games, it just sounds bad. Don't winning bid city's build eye catching and spectacle stadiums just for the purpose of hosting an Olympic games? Although, Chicago would not be able to support such a stadium at this time since there would be no use of it post-Olympics but it just feels weird that all that will be left of Chicago's Olympic Stadium will be a tremendously scaled back 10,000 seat stadium used just for T&F. Chicago can say 10 years aftetr 2016 that our big legacy from our Olympic games is our 10,000 seat Track stadium...lol

That's not the IOC's worry anymore. But I think Chicago is being realistic. I mean now they will have how many stadia? So better having a 10,000 stadium that will fill up some, rather than having a half-empty 20,000 seater for most events. And at least Chicago will have the 60,000 Soldier's Field, the 20,000 Bridgeview Chicago Crew stadium, Wrigley Field (what sport will they throw in there?), the Ryan Field in NU (would that be field hockey, you think?); and what else? 10,000's fine. Why should outsiders tell Chicago what it needs?

[Rafa]

i certainly dont think a legacy lies in the amount of seats left in a stadium, each city needs to find a TRUE legacy that really makes a difference to sporting facilities in the city, even if that means three new hockey fields around the city which have a fund to maintain them and replace them over the next 15 years, instead of just leaving behind a 5,000 seat hockey stadium. in terms of the 10,000 seat track stadium, thats fine, but if it comes with a new athletic training centre and sports research centre to train young and up and coming athletes then the capacity really is not that important, its something each future host city or bid city will have to find a balance with..

anyone got a map? google earth of the site? lets get some renderings going.

[LA84]

That's a good point, it will leave the city with a legacy for T&F but in all honestly, when I hear that an Olympic Stadium which is originally 90,000 in capacity will be reduced to 10,000 after the games, it just sounds bad. Don't winning bid city's build eye catching and spectacle stadiums just for the purpose of hosting an Olympic games? Although, Chicago would not be able to support such a stadium at this time since there would be no use of it post-Olympics but it just feels weird that all that will be left of Chicago's Olympic Stadium will be a tremendously scaled back 10,000 seat stadium used just for T&F. Chicago can say 10 years aftetr 2016 that our big legacy from our Olympic games is our 10,000 seat Track stadium...lol

So you believe that after London downsizes their stadium to 25,000 after the games that there will be no legacy?

London's legacy will not be just the stadium but the revitalization of that area of the city as well as the athletic facilities leftover.

Chicago is doing essentially the same thing in helping to revitalizing that part of the South Side but with an elegant solution that London doesn't have. To go through Jackson Park, past the Museum of Science and Industry and up the Midway, beautiful legacies of the Columbian Exposition, into Washington Park, where the Olympic Stadium and restored Olmstead Gardens lie will be, the combination of two historical legacies and a site that the people of the city will enjoy for years to come will be awesome.

[dave199]

So you believe that after London downsizes their stadium to 25,000 after the games that there will be no legacy?

London's legacy will not be just the stadium but the revitalization of that area of the city as well as the athletic facilities leftover.

Chicago is doing essentially the same thing in helping to revitalizing that part of the South Side but with an elegant solution that London doesn't have. To go through Jackson Park, past the Museum of Science and Industry and up the Midway, beautiful legacies of the Columbian Exposition, into Washington Park, where the Olympic Stadium and restored Olmstead Gardens lie will be, the combination of two historical legacies and a site that the people of the city will enjoy for years to come will be awesome.

London will still have a decently sized stadium left over. 25,000 sounds more better than 10,000. But like most have said, if Chicago can only support a 10,000 seater after the games, then they should go for that instead of creating a big white elephant for the city. Where I see them having a problem is in the international bidding process and competing against other cities that have better stadium plans, designs, and post use. That's the only problem I see with this, besides that Chicago's new stadium plan seems like it will work better than their horrendous two stadium proposal.

[LA84]

London will still have a decently sized stadium left over. 25,000 sounds more better than 10,000. But like most have said, if Chicago can only support a 10,000 seater after the games, then they should go for that instead of creating a big white elephant for the city. Where I see them having a problem is in the international bidding process and competing against other cities that have better stadium plans, designs, and post use. That's the only problem I see with this, besides that Chicago's new stadium plan seems like it will work better than their horrendous two stadium proposal.

I don't see that as a problem at all. London was up against all these full sized/rehabbed/new stadiums and won out with their collapsable plan.

As far as the size - who is to determine what acceptable usage is for after the games except the host city? I find it amusing that London's is deemed alright but Chicago's plan is oh so tiny. But I am sure that if Toronto or Rio came out with a plan that called for a 5-10,000 stadium after the games THAT would be alright.

[baron-pierreIV]

London will still have a decently sized stadium left over. 25,000 sounds more better than 10,000. But like most have said, if Chicago can only support a 10,000 seater after the games, then they should go for that instead of creating a big white elephant for the city. Where I see them having a problem is in the international bidding process and competing against other cities that have better stadium plans, designs, and post use. That's the only problem I see with this, besides that Chicago's new stadium plan seems like it will work better than their horrendous two stadium proposal.

Dave, if you will look at the ratio of the population of the metro area to what will be the downgraded capacity of the stadium, the #'s are right.

London, with a metro area of what? (I mean extending out to Stratford), 9 million+(?) will be left with a stadium for 25,000. Chicago, with a metro population of 3.5 mil+, will have a stadium for 10,000. So how low can that be for Chicago? The ratio of population to legacy capacity seems just right.

[ToddSF]

Dave, if you will look at the ratio of the population of the metro area to what will be the downgraded capacity of the stadium, the #'s are right.

London, with a metro area of what? (I mean extending out to Stratford), 9 million+(?) will be left with a stadium for 25,000. Chicago, with a metro population of 3.5 mil+, will have a stadium for 10,000. So how low can that be for Chicago? The ratio of population to legacy capacity seems just right.

The Wikipedia list says London and Chicago are about the same size. Note that SF is way down on this list because, for some reason, the Census Bureau insists on dividing the bay area so the south bay is not included. Otherwise it would be at about 7 million.

[baron-pierreIV]

The Wikipedia list says London and Chicago are about the same size. Note that SF is way down on this list because, for some reason, the Census Bureau insists on dividing the bay area so the south bay is not included. Otherwise it would be at about 7 million.

Wikepedia? I don't always trust them. Most lists put London in the 8 million range-- BESIDES, it IS the capital city of a nation; Chicago isn't. And Chicago is only ranked #2 or #3 in the US, depending on whose stats you go by -- and CHicago is NOT the capital of the nation. So you have to consider that, too.

THe point is, the people in CHicago feel it is enough for them afterwards. Who are we, or somebody else, to say otherwise?

[dave199]

Like I previously said, the new stadium plans are much better than the previous plan. I still think Tokyo or other potential bidding cities may have better stadium plans but they may have weaknesses in other aspects of their bids where Chicago may be superior. Anyways, good on Chicago for coming up with a viable practical plan for their stadium. I still cringe at the idea of the double Stadium plan..lol

[Mainad]

Wikepedia? I don't always trust them. Most lists put London in the 8 million range-- BESIDES, it IS the capital city of a nation; Chicago isn't. And Chicago is only ranked #2 or #3 in the US, depending on whose stats you go by -- and CHicago is NOT the capital of the nation. So you have to consider that, too.

This government website gives the population of London as 7.4 million.

http://www.bdjobsonline.co.uk/gol/OurRegion/LondonStats/

[baron-pierreIV]

This government website gives the population of London as 7.4 million.

http://www.bdjobsonline.co.uk/gol/OurRegion/LondonStats/

Give or take 1 million...Now, isn't Startford a separate city and technically, outside London's official city boundary? And isn't that where the new Olympic complex will be built?