Even by your definition, I feel comfortable in asserting that basketball is a more global sport than bobsledding (even amongst those snow loving Caribbean islanders), nordic or alpine skiing, or even figure skating. Probably moreso than gymnastics, diving, or equestrian events. Don't confuse US domination with a lack of global participation. And I can't remember a more exciting (to me) Olympic moment than the triumph of the US Men's Hockey team in 1980. Baseball is played extensively in the Western hemisphere and parts of Asia, although there is admittedly little interest in Europe. But I think you're wrong about basketball.
Hopefully Obama fails in introducing his policy as he promised during campaign but succeeds as a President otherwise (making left fringe of the democrats wildly mad in the process..)
As far as pricing, remember that these games will be scattered all over the place, as far away as Wisconsin. Not just downtown. The Games will be used as an opportunity to prop up long-underdeveloped parts of the city and in places where development is an actual option. Obviously the downtown lakefront isn't an option for slapping together pre-fab arenas or venues. There was a report last week about the common problem cities face during the games of speculative pricing. There are the usual places this can be found--hotels, restaurants, etc--but more concerning are the rental increases that literally force residents out of their neighborhoods. There are limits to rent increases, but if the prices are right these pesky limits can be circumvented in the name of the Games. You can't possibly compare an Olympic Games, an event that happens every other year, to today's innauguration? The Games are anything but unique, what's happening today is history. People will figuratively beg, borrow and steal to make it there to feel a part of history. This is a transcendent moment in the lives of so many and is far more important than the biennial sporting event. And if you've ever attended a playoff game in Chicago, the "common man" isn't anywhere to be seen. Assuming Chicago gets the games, construction wouldn't begin right away. Timing of the completion is important to ensure that new venues don't sit completed too long and actually begin to "age". The plans for the athletes' village especially so. And it's anyone's guess what the status of financing will be 10 months from now. If the economy continues to worsen as predicted, they'll approach anarchy if they keep talking about tapping into taxes for funding.
I can only hope, but do expect it to happen. To paraphrase Robert Heinlein, ...When the unproductive members of a society discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so..." They'll vote themselves bread and circuses every time "until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader [such as] the barbarians enter Rome. In today's contex, once less 50% of income tax filers pay 100% of the taxes, we are in big trouble.
So much love for the Games...nott. The official video they showed to the IOC at the end of the Chinese games showcases Chicago and all its local sports (baseball, basketball etc). They make the conclusion that Chicago is a city that loves sports and therefore will gladly embrace the Olympics. Obviously they haven't talked to you guys.
To come clean, I've boycotted the Olympics since the day it stopped being an event exclusively for amateurs. Can't say I've watched a baseball, football, or (insert whatever sports they play on TV these days here) game since the year the Bears went to the superbowl. What was that, 1985? Didn't give a rat's backside about the sport, but the team had an interesting vibe at the time.
Using the WPA as an example is comparing apples to oranges because the Depression era programs were completely different in their scope and goals. The WPA paid John Steinbeck to write a travel guide; not to make a swimming pool. (FWIW UIC used to have a copy of it.) The CCC paid teenagers to plant trees to prevent another "dust bowl." The 1984 Olympics paid my 17 y.o. cousin (and thousands of other teenagers like him) more than minimum wage to be an usher. Looking at past US host cities is a far more realistic comparison. Chicago could host the Olympics and make a profit at no direct expense to the tax payers, IF it were managed properly. Unfortunately, unless I have missed something, all host cities have lost money except L.A. in 1984. Under the leadership of Peter Ueberroth L.A. actually MADE money and NONE of the funding came directly from the tax payers. All public works improvements were paid for through revenue generated by spectators and sponsors. According to Sports Business News, "Los Angeles Olympic organizers turned to Peter Ueberroth, who stood and delivered. The Montreal Olympics had more than 600 sponsors, the 1980 Lake Placid Winter Games more than 350 sponsors. Ueberroth believed fewer sponsors (exclusivity) would bring bigger dollars. It was Peter Ueberroth who conceived the Olympic TOP program, it was Peter Ueberroths vision that saved the Olympic Games and turned the debt ridden Games into a money making machine. The 1984 Games, eight years after Montreal lost more than $1 billion generated a profit of $250 million. Ueberroth currently serving as the President of the United States Olympic Committee led the city of Los Angeles in 1984 to the biggest save in Olympic history, securing the future of the Olympic Games." L.A. had to build a new pool. So will Chicago. L.A. had several universities in close proximity that "loaned" there facilities in exchange for upgrades and a cut on the gate. I'm sure our universities would be happy to do the same. L.A. had one pre-existing stadium for openning/closing ceremonies that didn't need to be constructed from scratch. Same in Chicago. etc... Da Mayor gets what Da Mayor wants. Instead of listing reasons why we shouldn't host the Olympics, maybe we should be focused on how we can help make sure our city makes money on the Olympics.
You know he will! Campaigning politicians make all kinds of promises during their stumping, but few keep their promises once in office. Remember, "Read my lips, no new taxes!" What they say and what they do are two different things. Thank God Ryan didn't get a reprieve, and it will be good to see Blago go down too. Sad part is that the taxpayers will continue to support them while they are doing nothing. Ya gotta admit, most politicians are schemers.........
This That I doubt the Olympics will help Chicago in the long run. Maybe if we had some kind of stability in our government, but keep in mind the Cubs are gonna need a new stadium or at least significant renovations soon and who knows what the new owners will do for funding.
Agreed. And from the sound of things, seat licenses are now in discussion. The biggest fleecing of sports fans ever devised.
Panem et circenses wasn't voted on by the plebs but was an idea of the emperor. Started around the Pax Augusta and lasted for centuries without problems. Had little to do with the decline of Rome. In short: A bad analogy How would you know? How would reduction of unemployment, improving the infrastructure like our public transportation system and putting our city's name on a global map not be beneficiary to the city in the long run? Other Olympic cities still use their Olympic infrastructure for similar or other purposes. I'm thinking of Montreal and Munich, both enjoy beauiful parks and stadiums left behind by the games. The overwhelming majority of the Games will happen right downtown in Chicago. In fact the close proximity to the Olympic village is a major selling point. But see for yourself: http://www.chicago2016.org/our-plan/proposed-venues.aspx Finally I found the link: We're both kinda right: The big stadium will come down and a small stadium for 5k spectators will remain. Following the link from above: Chicago's Olympic Stadium, designed specifically for the 2016 Olympic Games, will rest on 100 acres in historic Washington Park. The stadium will host the Opening and Closing ceremonies, as well as the Athletics competition. The concept for this facility is both innovative and responsible. During the Games it will accommodate crowds of 80,000; post-Games it will be reconfigured into a community-friendly, 5,000 seat amphitheatre that will host sporting events, festivals, concerts and other cultural activities. Right on.
It seems the stadium will be left over as a 10,000 seat stadium but for what? I'm trying to think of a reason I would go downtown to see anything entertaining that would occupy the venue. Surely there is something that would draw people, but I don't think it will be something that produces enough revenue to justify the initial costs.
A 5,000 seat amphitheatre to me sounds like the perfect venue for open air concerts in the summer and possibly an ice skating ring in the winter. Just look at what they created at Northerly Island (aka Meigs Field). This will be similar but on a bigger scale. Regarding costs: Remember that all the costs are accumulated and divided by all the revenues. If you look at the list of stadiums, you realize that many of them are already there and ready to use, so the revenues can go to the ones left, like this one. This plan is a far cry from the Chinese bird's nest. This is a lot more reasonable and cost efficient. I heard that the IOC is btw working on regulations regarding costs because they have realized that cities don't want to build these monster stadiums for 2 weeks only. I think this stadium is the best example for that new approach (and the Chinese one is the opposite).
The bid is now public and good news to those who are not fans of the 2016 Olympics coming to Chicago: - Daley sent a letter to the IOC explaining why Chicago refuses to give a government backed guarantee on the budget: If they can't get the money required, the state/city won't cover the rest. Daley is very confident that they will get enough funds through sponsorship deals, TV revenues and private donations, but unlike the other 3 competing cities, he refuses to give a guarantee. - Architectural critics lament the lack of pizzaz in the proposal: They say it is clear that not world reknown architects but accountant and bureaucrats made the plans for the new buildings. Instead of inspiring architecture cost effectiveness and the bottom line was the goal. Both of these comments should help keeping the costs low enough to remain in the budget (which all those in fear of tax hikes will like to hear) and also greatly reduce Chicago's chances of actually winning the Games. I was 99% sure we'd get the games before the bid was made, but with these two caveats (particularly the one about the lack of a government guarantee, which is required by the IOC, it is NOT negotiable) I'm no longer so sure.
Andreas, I'm glad to see you're finally coming over to the 'Dark Side'! The "plebs" as you referred to earlier, really have no say-so in the matter. Nor, will most of the plebeian culture benefit from the IOC choosing Chicago. Me thinks our corrupt politicians would get most of the rewards ; what say ye?
The plebs has no say in the matter, that's true. For better or worse. And if the plebs only likes its current local sports, well, then yes, the plebs won't get much out of the Games. However I do think there are a lot of people out there who actually would love to see the Games here in town, particularly if no tax burden is attached to them. Also I do believe that the Games would be an economic boost to many in the city. Furthermore a lot of the projects revealed in the bit have a direct positive impact on the city: - new Monroe harbor with a lot more boat slips - new tennis courts at Waveland - new public pool on the South side - new outdoor sports facilities at Northerly island (aka Meigs Field) - developed housing on lake front south of McCormick - new pedestrian bridge across LSD in Grant park - improved public transportation - new outdoor arena on the Southside for open air concerts etc And unlike e.g. China there won't be any empty shells of useless stadiums left over. The Chicago approach is very different from e.g. Munich, where all the facilities were concentrated in one park and newly constructed. Our bid makes maximum use of existing facilities and only adds what can't be done without. That's also why the budget is so relatively modest. So no, I don't think the Games would only benefit the politicians. Quite the opposite.
Time to bring back this thread, which has new found actuality: Yesterday the Mayor decided to sign the financial backing guarantee for the IOC. While this could mean a special tax if the projected revenues don't materialize, it also means Chicago is now finally on a par setting with the other 4 cities. Or in other words: The chances of us getting the games dramatically increased and I'm very sure this will actually happen.
And so will your property tax and others rise. So, the taxpayers will probably have to chip in and see no reward in doing so! In my mind, if the IOC picks Chicago, it's a no-win situation for the general public.
We'll have to agree to disagree. In my mind, Chicagoans will get the benefit of attending the biggest sporting event on the planet in their backyard. And before that happens many jobs will be created by getting the city ready for it. I'm fairly sure the games will be a financial success and this guarantee won't be necessary. The reality however is, that probably we (as the public) will never find out, because in the end, it will boil down to "creative accounting": While the construction of the stadiums are relatively easy to tag, do you add in all the infrastructure changes/enhancements or were they part of the city's beautification program all along?
Yet another example of the Chicago way on public projects: The Chicago Children's Museum's controversial plan to relocate to Grant Park appears to be in jeopardy.... Here's an excerpt from the Crain's story, written by Greg Hinz: "A moribund economy now may have a better chance of blocking the project than lawsuits by parks activists and neighborhood opponents. Fundraising has foundered while projected costs have climbed by tens of millions to $150 million or more, Crain's has learned. Sources close to the project say odds now are 50-50 at best that the Grant Park plan will proceed." The original posposed cost for this museum was $85 million, at least a 75% increase!
I so hope that the children's museum project chokes on its own budget. It is a totally crazy idea to put this in the middle of Chicago. I have seen some of the studies of the traffic chaos on Randolph once the school buses are coming.
I agree that the Grant Park location is not ideal; however, neither is Navy Pier. The Chicago museum needs to find a new home with more (above ground) space than the Grant Park location can offer. Space for future expansion is essential for a new children's museum to thrive. Kohl's has almost nine acres of space and I can see them running out of space in the not too distant future as they continue to add exhibits. As a lifelong Chicago resident, I find it rather amusing that many of the people who are against this move (and the use of tax dollars) do not even live in the city. This is not to say that I agree with the inefficiency of much of our government, because I don't. However, I think our parks are one of our greatest assets and providing year round spaces for our children to play and discover are essential. Instead of scaling back these projects, the city needs to increase the number of new park projects. Furthermore, they need to keep these resource affordable for everyone. My two cents, 'nuff said.
Chicago enjoys a healthy amount of revenue from tourism already. Already a world-class city, we don't need the Olympics to artificially elevate our global stature, as many past host cities have done. And there is a well-documented past of host cities ending up deeply in the red as a result of costs associated with preparing for the Games. But what you need to consider is that, for many people the Games no longer carry the same significance they once did. There's usually an interesting storyline or two, and with certain locations there is a natural curiosity to see how and what they'll do, like China. But so much of the competition has become commercialized that it can be hard to get behind a lot of the action. The reality is, an Olympic Games is the WORST time to see a city. And while I agree taxes are not the measure of life, that sentiment you're getting from other posters is the product of those who know full well how this city works. We have already been deceived by Daley and his planners. So why isn't there more outrage? Because we KNEW they were going to lie to us. And with pensions not being funded, schools in disarray, Police without a contract, workers being laid off and services being slashed, it's a little difficult to rally enthusiasm for a pet project that will line the pockets of a handful of Daley's political insiders--per usual--while further bankrupting the local citizenry.
Agreed. The Children's museum should be outside of downtown altogether so all the school buses don't even get into the traffic. As for Navy Pier: I so hate that place, it is hard to put it into words. If you really don't like your friends/family from out of town, then send them to Navy Pier. Or if they European to a Cubs game; they'll hate you forever.
