Jump to content

Chicago's Revised 2016 Plan


LA84

Recommended Posts

Uhmmm, this might create legal problems with the original Olympic Tower (built by the Onassis interests when he controlled Olympic Airways) in New York City.

The IOC controls any use of the word "Olympic". They recently made Chicago's Improv Olympics comedy group change it's name. It would be their call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply
On CBS's website a model of the Olympic Village is given.

To me, it looks like waves on Lake Michigan, very elegant. With a transport center at the very right hand corner of the pic.

Link:

http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/local_story_266124132.html

The village is incredible. B) It's sort of an abstract of the Olympic rings. Also kind of reminds me of River City - didn't Skidmore design that too?

My guess on Wrigly and Comiskey is that the Chicago committee are leaving those open in the event that baseball returns. Plus the Olympics are right in the middle of baseball season and so no renovations of the fields for anything other than baseball can occur. I believe during '96 that the Braves played on the road for like a month and then returned to Fulton County Stadium within a week or so after the conclusion of the games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm wondering is where the other Midwest locations for soccer prelims will be held?

I'm thinking:

Green Bay, WI- Lambeau Field 73,000

Madison, WI- Camp Randall Stadium 80,300

Champaign, IL- Memorial Stadium 70,000

South Bend, IN- Notre Dame Stadium 80,000

*Chicago, IL- Soldier Field 62,000

Now the thing is, will Daley leave the region out in the cold, and concetrate football prelims completley within Chicago, like at Toyota Park, or clebrate the region or country like every other Olympics.

I mean, LA had prelims in Boston, and Atlanta had theirs in Washington D.C, Miami, Orlando, Birmingham, and had finals 2 hours from Atlanta in Athens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm thinking:

Green Bay, WI- Lambeau Field 73,000

Madison, WI- Camp Randall Stadium 80,300

Champaign, IL- Memorial Stadium 70,000

South Bend, IN- Notre Dame Stadium 80,000

*Chicago, IL- Soldier Field 62,000

I would guess that only one WI location would be used and instead something in MI (Detroit, Ann Arbor, or East Lansing) to spread things out a bit more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess the mexicans are backing Chicago :) .

hehe... hold your horses!!! is my favorite to represent the US that's all!!!!

Chicago seems more appealing, and is a great project they are offering. I used to consider SF my faovirte, bacause I love that city, but their plan is not that good for me.

Go Chicago! ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An Olympic bid should NOT be some social justice pet project to improve the ghetto. Having grown up next to Washington Park (3 blocks east, at 52nd and Ellis), played soccer games there, driven down Garfield countless times, taken the green line there roundtrip many times to work..... I say this is an incredibly idiotic idea. The IOC will visit the location, give each other blank stares of bewilderment, and immediately throw out the Chicago bid. Take the green line to Garfield Blvd, walk east to the park, walk around the neighborhood too, if you will. Is this honestly what Chicago wants to be showcasing to the world? I mean, the area between the Dan Ryan expy and Washington Park is really not a nice area, and that would be high-traffic with tons of foreign tourists.....unless they're proposing another very large-scale urban renewal project wherein they basically bulldoze everything and kick out all the residents and start from scratch.

This is just my two cents. Take it how you may but the Washington Park location is completely garbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An Olympic bid should NOT be some social justice pet project to improve the ghetto. Having grown up next to Washington Park (3 blocks east, at 52nd and Ellis), played soccer games there, driven down Garfield countless times, taken the green line there roundtrip many times to work..... I say this is an incredibly idiotic idea. The IOC will visit the location, give each other blank stares of bewilderment, and immediately throw out the Chicago bid. Take the green line to Garfield Blvd, walk east to the park, walk around the neighborhood too, if you will. Is this honestly what Chicago wants to be showcasing to the world? I mean, the area between the Dan Ryan expy and Washington Park is really not a nice area, and that would be high-traffic with tons of foreign tourists.....unless they're proposing another very large-scale urban renewal project wherein they basically bulldoze everything and kick out all the residents and start from scratch.

This is just my two cents. Take it how you may but the Washington Park location is completely garbage.

First off, welcome to the boards. :D

I disagree - the Washington Park idea is pure brilliance and will serve as the catalyst to right the wrong that has occurred there since the Columbian Exposition.

If you know of the Olympics you would know, most recently, that London is using the games to reinvigorate one of the less desireable areas of the city. In Chicago's case you have trendy Hyde Park on one side and less desireable areas on the other. Now that the Robert Taylor Homes have been demolished it is the perfect opportunity to reinvent the area from I 57 over to Garfield Blvd and surrounding Washington Park.

As far as it being ghetto I somewhat disagree. I used to take Stoney Island over to Lake Shore Drive off I 90 through Washington/Jackson Park when I made a lot of weekend trips to Michigan - with the top down on my car. Granted it's not like the North Side but all in all, I never felt threatened. The Olympics would only serve to make it better.

BTW MO - in answer to your earlier questions about noise pollution and the village. I know the area where the village is supposed to go. It is far enough off Lake Shore Drive and I 55 that it shouldn't be a problem, although it is closer to I 55 than I thought. I guess if it is determined that it might be a problem they would construct sound barriers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An article from the Chicago Tribune:

Chicago faces uphill climb for Olympics

As Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco pull the veils from their proposals to host the 2016 Summer Games, one thing is becoming crystal clear: Of the three, Chicago is facing the highest hurdles at this time.

Chicago is new to the bid process, while its competitors are veterans with established organizations and existing road maps. Chicago's stadium plan is the most ambitious and expensive, which will require more intensive private fundraising.

And, while informal polling by the U.S. Olympic Committee showed strong international interest in Chicago earlier this year, some observers believe Chicago's image overseas is dated, linked more to stockyards, steel and Al Capone than to its stunning skyline, blossoming Millennium Park and first-rate cultural and culinary offerings.

"I travel the world a lot ... and it astounds me how many people still view Chicago as Al Capone city, and Michael Jordan," said Marc Ganis, an expert in sports facility development.

Most early bets are being placed on San Francisco, which was the first runner-up in the domestic competition for 2012 behind New York. And some others are betting on two-time Olympics host Los Angeles, which has most of its venues in place.

"My gut feeling is that San Francisco might have an edge this time around," said Robert Livingstone, the producer of GamesBids.com, in Toronto. "It's got experience from 2012, it's got a lot of attractive international elements, and [Los Angeles] has already had the Olympics twice."

Still, it remains a horse race, and nobody is counting Chicago out just yet.

"Chicago has acquitted itself extremely well so far, but there is a tremendous amount to do," said Ganis, president of Sportscorp Ltd.

The Chicago 2016 Committee "has got to work on romance," said A.D. Frazier, who was the chief operating officer of the 1996 Atlanta Games. "They have got to overcome the steak-and-potatoes reputation."

Chicago voiced confidence in its approach.

"Our focus really has been on the athlete's experience ... and making a significant investment in the Games and the athletes," said Doug Arnot, director of venue development and operations for the Chicago 2016 Committee. The city's plan is compact, with many venues along the lakefront and near downtown, including an Olympic Village south of McCormick Place and a temporary main stadium in Washington Park, near the University of Chicago.

All three cities submitted revised proposals to the U.S. Olympic Committee last Friday, and the organization will issue evaluations of those proposals in late October. The field may be narrowed afterwards.

By year's end, the USOC will decide whether to float a U.S. bid city, and if it goes forward, pick the city by early April.

Chicago is not alone in facing hurdles.

Los Angeles will have to fight a "same-old, same-old" stigma and perhaps some lingering hard feelings that it didn't share the $225 million surplus from the 1984 Games with the international Olympics movement. And San Francisco will have to prove it can rally all necessary public authorities, a shortcoming in its bid to host the 2012 Games, some observers say.

But those two cities do have some advantages.

San Francisco found a way to bring the centerpiece stadium for opening and closing ceremonies, track and field, and soccer finals into the city, along the San Francisco Bay. The proposal involves temporary modifications to a planned new stadium for the 49ers football team.

And while no price tag has been disclosed for the Olympics adaptations, it is likely to be in the neighborhood of $35 million, a fraction of the $300 million Chicago estimates it would cost to build a temporary stadium in Washington Park on the South Side and later convert it into a 10,000-seat below-ground arena.

San Francisco's previous bid, for the 2012 Summer Games, was criticized for spread-out venues.

"The farthest bus ride for any athletes is 54 minutes, which means every single athlete will be able to stay in that one village," said Mark Dolley, a spokesman for the San Francisco 2016 Bid Committee.

Still, San Francisco's previous run "had serious organizational questions that may or may not have been resolved," said John MacAloon, an Olympics scholar at the University of Chicago. The key issue was "how committed are all the public authorities?"

San Francisco is the only finalist that hasn't disclosed its full venue plan, saying it's still talking with affected communities.

Los Angeles, meanwhile, has most of its venues in place, but emphasizes that at least 70 percent of the sports will be in different facilities than in 1984.

"The Games will be held in beautiful new venues that are already in existence," said Barry Sanders, chairman of the Southern California Committee for the Olympic Games. The Coliseum, as it did in 1932 and 1984, would serve as the main stadium once a track is re-installed.

Costs for permanent and temporary construction for the Games should be less than $150 million, including $20 million to put the track in the stadium.

In contrast, Chicago's proposal involves nearly $2 billion in privately financed construction, including $300 million for the stadium, and $1 billion for an Olympic Village south of McCormick Place.

But Los Angeles' having hosted two previous Games could work against it.

Some International Olympic Committee members still resent that the 1984 surplus wasn't shared with the international movement, said MacAloon, of the U of C.

Sanders rejects this observation, saying the surplus has been used to foster youth sports. In any case, for 2016, "we are doing things differently, trying to employ all the best lessons 32 years later," he said.

While Chicago faces an uphill battle, it remains squarely in the game, say a number of observers.

Chicago's bid is the most compact of the three. "And Chicago has a great airport; the mass transit is superior, the hotel accommodations are ample," said Frazier.

And another strength, say observers, is political will.

"The mayor brings tremendous strength and credibility ... which is very important to the USOC and the IOC," said Jay Kriegel, who was executive director of New York City's bid for the 2012 Games, which ultimately went to London.

San Francisco

Weaknesses:

- Political cohesion of region in question

- Stadium plan still in flux

Strengths:

- Romantic image overseas

- First runner-up in last domestic contest

- Stadium deal, if successful, would be low-cost

Chicago

Weaknesses:

- Newcomer to the Olympic bid process

- Ambitious construction program with significant fundraising challenge.

- Outdated image overseas as meat-and-potatoes town

Strengths:

- Venues would be compact, highlight lakefront

- Airport, hotel accommodations and mass transit

- Ability to get things done, strong-willed mayor

- Dazzling public space to celebrate the games

Los Angeles

Weaknesses:

- Been there, done that: City has hosted two Olympics

- Hard feelings may linger over use of 1984 Games surplus

Strengths:

- Most venues already exist

- Construction costs will be low

- Hollywood image an easy sell

Chicago faces uphill climb for Olympics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

San Francisco is the only finalist that hasn't disclosed its full venue plan, saying it's still talking with affected communities.

Ah, so. If they deputized me, Oakland, Berkeley, EBMUD (where the Briones Reservoir is located), San Jose and Palo Alto would all fall in line yesterday!!

BTW -- all of my SF venues are far closer than any of Chicago's football satellite venues, I believe. (LA84, please compute those distances. THank you.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW -- all of my SF venues are far closer than any of Chicago's football satellite venues, I believe. (LA84, please compute those distances. THank you.)

But the soccer, er, football venues are the ones traditionally farther apart so that people outside of the immediate Olympic region have a chance to experience the Olympic spirit. If compactness is the goal for the soccer venues, there are closer options than what was previously described, but if exposure to a broader audience is the aim, there are a plethora of options in the Midwest available as well. I guess it depends on your goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today, Daley met with state reps in Washington D.C today to discuss nationwide support for the Chicago 2016 Olympic Committee. After visiting Capitol Hill, Daley then went to the White House to discuss Chicago's Olympic Chances with White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten.

Article:

Daley pushes Chicago as Olympic site

By Richard Clough

Washington Bureau

Published September 28, 2006, 8:19 PM CDT

Mayor Richard Daley pushed for congressional support Thursday for Chicago's bid to win the 2016 Olympic Games.

On the second day of a busy jaunt that took Daley through the White House and to Capitol Hill, the mayor also lobbied lawmakers in his push to privatize Midway Airport, raise the federal minimum wage and curb the flow of drug money through Chicago.

But the fight to host the Olympics remained at the top of Daley's agenda.

"I'm here to really draw up support—bipartisan support—on behalf of the entire country for the 2016 Olympics," Daley said. "To me, we have to have pride in this. We have to say we want the Olympics."

The mayor met with the Illinois congressional delegation in a closed-door meeting Thursday to discuss Chicago's campaign for the games. Reporters were not allowed into the meeting, but Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) afterward called the meeting productive.

"We're behind the mayor on the Olympics," Durbin said. "I can tell you there was a real positive response here."

Daley also met privately Thursday with White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten to discuss the city's Olympic hopes, which a spokeswoman for the White House called "a good meeting."

Last Friday, Chicago's Olympic planners submitted the city's bid to host the games to the U.S. Olympic Committee.

Daley has proposed Washington Park, on the South Side, as the site for the games, saying the area will benefit from the new jobs it would create and from the estimated $6.5 billion the Olympics would pump into the local economy.

Last week, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) said the choice of the South Side was "an election ploy. He said Daley has ignored the area during his time in office.

Olympic planners last week revealed revised plans for a 95,000-seat Olympic stadium, which they said would cost about $300 million, up from the original estimate of $200 million. The proposed Olympic Village, to be built just south of McCormick Place, is expected to cost more than $1 billion, but officials have said no public funds will be used to pay for the games.

Los Angeles and San Francisco are also competing for the U.S. bid to host the games.

Daley met with congressional leaders to push for an increase in the federal minimum wage, which he has been lobbying for since his veto of the "big-box" minimum-wage ordinance earlier this month.

The big-box measure would have raised employee pay to $13 an hour by 2010 for workers in stores with at least 90,000 square feet and operated by companies with at least $1 billion in yearly sales.

Rather than increasing pay locally, Daley wants the national minimum wage raised from its current level of $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour.

The Senate in August rejected a bill that would have raised the minimum wage.

Daley's busy schedule Thursday also included meetings about the city's plans to privatize Midway Airport, which Chicago has owned and operated since 1927.

Daley is seeking approval from the Federal Aviation Administration to lease the airport to a private entity. The proposal is modeled on the city's lease of the Chicago Skyway nearly two years ago, which netted the city almost $2 billion.

Daley said money gained from leasing the airport would be used for schools, parks and basic infrastructure.

The plan requires approval from 65 percent of the airlines that operate out of Midway, which stands at seven after American and United Airlines ended service earlier this month.

Several airlines with passenger service out of Midway have expressed concern over the proposal, fearing it would increase costs and hurt service.

A decision on the plan is not expected for several months.

rxclough@tribune.com

Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daley's a Democrat or an independent? I wonder how the USOC would look at this move. Maybe on the amateurish side?

Or perhaps bold and showing that they are serious about having thing in place and the government backing needed to go for 2009.

Me thinks that Newsome should be out doing this same sort of thing with the city leaders/main left winged special interest groups/tree huggers as well as with the state and federal govt. <_< . Unfortunatly he has the biggest hurdle to climb to gain the support the USOC requires.

BTW -- all of my SF venues are far closer than any of Chicago's football satellite venues, I believe. (LA84, please compute those distances. THank you.)

Always happy to assist with my distances skills :P

With your plan the main venues are spread out over 76 miles. Milwaukee and South Bend are about 100 miles away from the city, Champaign and Madison around 120-150 and Ann Arbor around 250 (I did not Mapquest these so if I am off a few miles - BITE ME! :P )

However, if SF does get 2016 count on some soccer being played in the LA area - 400+ miles away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or perhaps bold and showing that they are serious about having thing in place and the government backing needed to go for 2009.

Me thinks that Newsome should be out doing this same sort of thing with the city leaders/main left winged special interest groups/tree huggers as well as with the state and federal govt. <_< . Unfortunatly he has the biggest hurdle to climb to gain the support the USOC requires.

Always happy to assist with my distances skills :P

With your plan the main venues are spread out over 76 miles. Milwaukee and South Bend are about 100 miles away from the city, Champaign and Madison around 120-150 and Ann Arbor around 250 (I did not Mapquest these so if I am off a few miles - BITE ME! :P )

Thanks. Insofar as the press release, SF2012's Information Director, Mark Dolley, said that no SF venue will be farther than 54 minutes, travel time, FROM the epicenter of all distances, the Olympic Village. I guess that would be either of the San Jose venues: HP Pavilion or Spartan Stadium. Of course, it would be quite easy shuttling the athletes down there: down 101, cut over either the San Mateo or Dumbarton bridges and down 880 right into San Jose. (Of course, the "F_rry" word is an alternative. But, ssssshhh.)

However, if SF does get 2016 count on some soccer being played in the LA area - 400+ miles away.

Nope, LA is not counted in the SF scenario because the Bay Area would five (5) decent venues for soccer: (1) MacFee Stadium, Oakland (63,000+); (2) Stanford Stadium (newly refurbished for 50,000 seats); (3) Memorial Stadium at UC-Berkeley (73,000; could be slightly less after a major refurbishment); for the prelims, these 2 smaller stadia: (4) AT&T Park in the City (41,500); and (5) the future home of the returning Earthquakes in Fremont (right now, est. at 20,000). So there would be no need to reach outside the area. (And if need be, maybe Sacramento might be another fall-back area.)

Thus, Chicago's venues will indeed be farther away (from either Olympic Stadium or the OV) than SF's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...