Olympic turmoil in the Second City
September 24, 2009 4:01 AM Subscribe
On October 2, 2009, the International Olympic Committee will meet in Copenhagen to choose between Chicago, Rio de Janiero, Tokyo, and Madrid as the site of the 2016 Summer Olympics. While Chicago sends some of its most famous citizens to Copenhagen, a protest against Chicago's bid is planned at City Hall.
On October 2, 2009, the International Olympic Committee will meet in Copenhagen to determine where the 2016 Olympics will be held - Chicago, Rio de Janeiro, Tokyo, or Madrid. The final report on each city is posted here (PDF link).
Chicago 2016 has been aggressively promoting the potential benefits of hosting the games, citing economic benefits, lasting sports legacy programs, and the potential for increased federal funding for infrastructure improvements. Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey are going to the meeting in Copenhagen to sell the city. But, it appears that in much of Chicago’s populace, support for the Olympics is dwindling.
At the time of the last IOC visit, the Chicago 2016 organizing committee had not provided complete guarantees covering budget shortfalls, with the city and state providing collectively $750M shortfall guarantees. On September 8th, the Chicago finance committee authorized Mayor Richard M. Daley to sign a host-city contract guaranteeing that Chicago, if chosen, will spend as much as is needed to host the Olympics, and absorb any operating losses.
On September 29, a rally at Chicago City Hall is planned to protest the Chicago 2016 bid. The protests that have surrounded Chicago 2016 have been varied, and complaints range from a $500M budget shortfall and the need for better infrastructure for its citizens, Chicago’s corrupt political climate, and opposition to the plan to destroy much of the historic Michael Reese Hospital, the planned site for the Olympic Village. Meanwhile, on a different front, some Chicagoans have taken to promoting Rio’s bid, rather than protesting Chicago’s.
On October 2, 2009, the International Olympic Committee will meet in Copenhagen to determine where the 2016 Olympics will be held - Chicago, Rio de Janeiro, Tokyo, or Madrid. The final report on each city is posted here (PDF link).
Chicago 2016 has been aggressively promoting the potential benefits of hosting the games, citing economic benefits, lasting sports legacy programs, and the potential for increased federal funding for infrastructure improvements. Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey are going to the meeting in Copenhagen to sell the city. But, it appears that in much of Chicago’s populace, support for the Olympics is dwindling.
At the time of the last IOC visit, the Chicago 2016 organizing committee had not provided complete guarantees covering budget shortfalls, with the city and state providing collectively $750M shortfall guarantees. On September 8th, the Chicago finance committee authorized Mayor Richard M. Daley to sign a host-city contract guaranteeing that Chicago, if chosen, will spend as much as is needed to host the Olympics, and absorb any operating losses.
On September 29, a rally at Chicago City Hall is planned to protest the Chicago 2016 bid. The protests that have surrounded Chicago 2016 have been varied, and complaints range from a $500M budget shortfall and the need for better infrastructure for its citizens, Chicago’s corrupt political climate, and opposition to the plan to destroy much of the historic Michael Reese Hospital, the planned site for the Olympic Village. Meanwhile, on a different front, some Chicagoans have taken to promoting Rio’s bid, rather than protesting Chicago’s.
Well, with the budgetary problems in Chicago, if the Olympics ARE held there, I'd expect them to not even come close to comparing to the majesty and splendor that the Chinese rolled out in Beijing, and the comparisons would then make us look lame-ish. On the other hand, if the cost can be shifted to the federal taxpayer, then I'd still be all for it, because then we could look good and that WOULD benefit Chicago some...without wiping out their budget.
posted by jamstigator at 4:13 AM on September 24, 2009
posted by jamstigator at 4:13 AM on September 24, 2009
My boyfriend works for the City of Chicago - actually, the Department of Cultural Affairs, which would be a ground zero for those involved with Olympic planning/maintenance. He was hit with having to take 14 unpaid furlough days this year. So no, if you can't pay the workers of your city - not even those that will be on the front lines - what the hell business do you have hosting such an event?
posted by Windigo at 4:25 AM on September 24, 2009 [14 favorites]
posted by Windigo at 4:25 AM on September 24, 2009 [14 favorites]
That, and between Salt Lake City in 2002 and Atlanta in 1996, it's not really USA's turn again yet. There are a lot of countries out there that deserve a first Olympic Games before USA gets its 9th.
This is true, but NBC bankrolls the Olympics. That means the IOC can't keep it out of the ratings-friendly time zones for too many goes before bringing it back. As cities from South America are taken more seriously as hosts, this will probably mean the U.S. doesn't come up in the rotation as often.
posted by aswego at 4:28 AM on September 24, 2009
This is true, but NBC bankrolls the Olympics. That means the IOC can't keep it out of the ratings-friendly time zones for too many goes before bringing it back. As cities from South America are taken more seriously as hosts, this will probably mean the U.S. doesn't come up in the rotation as often.
posted by aswego at 4:28 AM on September 24, 2009
While the people who live in Chicago don't want it, I hope they get it because it'll probably be the easiest it'll ever be for me to attend the Olympics. Plus, my iron worker brother would probably find it a lot easier to find work.
posted by drezdn at 4:35 AM on September 24, 2009
posted by drezdn at 4:35 AM on September 24, 2009
Hmmm... I'm of two minds about this. Bringing all that building and money down on Chicago would pump the carnival of state and municipal corruption into a Disneyland of political vice. On the other hand, the city and nation's culture have both been enriched by pointless, showy blowouts on the shores of Lake Michigan -- the most obvious examples being the "White City" exposition of early 20th century and the Great Fire. A Chicago Olympics would be a disaster for the city, and a convulsion that just might give it some shape for the new century.
posted by Faze at 4:43 AM on September 24, 2009
posted by Faze at 4:43 AM on September 24, 2009
If Chicago gets the Olympics, Obama supporters will try to give him the credit. If it doesn't, Obama opponents will try to blame him.
posted by box at 5:01 AM on September 24, 2009
posted by box at 5:01 AM on September 24, 2009
There are a lot of countries out there that deserve a first Olympic Games before USA gets its 9th.
And Tokyo (1964) and Madrid (Barcelona 1992) are on that list? I'm guessing you meant Rio "Security Nightmare" de Janiero, though. Actually, I'm totally for branching out as well. It's time to let some new people in on hosting. Security is always going to be the excuse (a pretty valid one mind you) for excluding any nations that aren't the elites.
posted by Pollomacho at 5:03 AM on September 24, 2009
And Tokyo (1964) and Madrid (Barcelona 1992) are on that list? I'm guessing you meant Rio "Security Nightmare" de Janiero, though. Actually, I'm totally for branching out as well. It's time to let some new people in on hosting. Security is always going to be the excuse (a pretty valid one mind you) for excluding any nations that aren't the elites.
posted by Pollomacho at 5:03 AM on September 24, 2009
On the other hand, the city and nation's culture have both been enriched by pointless, showy blowouts on the shores of Lake Michigan -- the most obvious examples being the "White City" exposition of early 20th century and the Great Fire.
Well, this is a novel and bracing view of the Great Fire.
As far as the 2016 games are concerned, speaking as a denizen of Chicago, DO NOT WANT.
posted by timeo danaos at 5:04 AM on September 24, 2009 [1 favorite]
Well, this is a novel and bracing view of the Great Fire.
As far as the 2016 games are concerned, speaking as a denizen of Chicago, DO NOT WANT.
posted by timeo danaos at 5:04 AM on September 24, 2009 [1 favorite]
Isn't the major economic benefit form the Olympics the free reign to bulldoze & gentrify poor neighborhoods? So maybe Rio de Janeiro would benefit most from the Olympics?
Otoh, IOC members try being even more corrupt than U.S. Senators. So I'm sure they'll pick the city whose criminal underbelly gains the most from the Olympics and gives the biggest bribes.
posted by jeffburdges at 5:08 AM on September 24, 2009
Otoh, IOC members try being even more corrupt than U.S. Senators. So I'm sure they'll pick the city whose criminal underbelly gains the most from the Olympics and gives the biggest bribes.
posted by jeffburdges at 5:08 AM on September 24, 2009
Speaking solely from the perspective of economics (and I'm by no means an Economist), Brown & Massey (2001) showed a wide divergence of realised vs expected results i.e., the 1972 Munich games lost £178 million and 1976 Montreal Olympics lost £692 million, while the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics games made £215 million and the 1992 Barcelona Olympics brought in a surplus of about £2 million.
The problem of arriving at what's called an "efficient" estimate is complicated by vested interests who will overstate expected benefits, especially so long term (difficult to quantify sometimes), while understating costs.
In order to properly align expected benefits a full and proper Economic Impact Assessment has to be carried out; a decidedly non-trivial task.
Because GDP in general is notoriously difficult to forecast, adding in the complication of a demand side shock and the ancillary impact of Gross Value Added (GVA, labour payments plus operating surplus plus taxes) and Net Value Added (NVA, labour payments and gross operating surplus of a regional economy) revenue streams can seriously distort the efficiency of any estimate, unless assumptions are challenged, and forecasts reworked across a wide variety of possible outcomes.
This is a complex process in the purest academic sense, and once real-world political interests (i.e, backroom deals) are factored in the opportunity for willful error is obvious.
I'm afraid its roughly 50/50 if the Olympics bring any positive, long term benefit to a community.
In fact, jeffburdges is spot on here - in many developed nations you often only see a short term regional GDP spike due to development, and then later a shortfall as the forecast tax revenue doesn't materialise.
So maybe Olympics should only be held in developing nations?
What ever they decide to do in Chicago, best of luck to them! We're on track for 2012 here in East London but I've yet to see much persistent benefit. That being said, I'm gonna rent my flat out for a couple years worth of mortgage payments, if numbers that have been floated by me are still available in a couple of years.
Brown, A., Massey, J., 2001, "The sports development impact of the Manchester 2002 Commonwealth Games: initial baseline research", Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester Institute for Popular Culture
posted by Mutant at 5:23 AM on September 24, 2009 [7 favorites]
The problem of arriving at what's called an "efficient" estimate is complicated by vested interests who will overstate expected benefits, especially so long term (difficult to quantify sometimes), while understating costs.
In order to properly align expected benefits a full and proper Economic Impact Assessment has to be carried out; a decidedly non-trivial task.
Because GDP in general is notoriously difficult to forecast, adding in the complication of a demand side shock and the ancillary impact of Gross Value Added (GVA, labour payments plus operating surplus plus taxes) and Net Value Added (NVA, labour payments and gross operating surplus of a regional economy) revenue streams can seriously distort the efficiency of any estimate, unless assumptions are challenged, and forecasts reworked across a wide variety of possible outcomes.
This is a complex process in the purest academic sense, and once real-world political interests (i.e, backroom deals) are factored in the opportunity for willful error is obvious.
I'm afraid its roughly 50/50 if the Olympics bring any positive, long term benefit to a community.
In fact, jeffburdges is spot on here - in many developed nations you often only see a short term regional GDP spike due to development, and then later a shortfall as the forecast tax revenue doesn't materialise.
So maybe Olympics should only be held in developing nations?
What ever they decide to do in Chicago, best of luck to them! We're on track for 2012 here in East London but I've yet to see much persistent benefit. That being said, I'm gonna rent my flat out for a couple years worth of mortgage payments, if numbers that have been floated by me are still available in a couple of years.
Brown, A., Massey, J., 2001, "The sports development impact of the Manchester 2002 Commonwealth Games: initial baseline research", Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester Institute for Popular Culture
posted by Mutant at 5:23 AM on September 24, 2009 [7 favorites]
I live about a 5 minute drive from the stadium they built for the Salt Lake City Olympics. So during the opening ceremonies, I could hear a fireworks explosion out my back door - and then hear the same explosion come out of my television a half-second later.
That was pretty cool.
posted by Joe Beese at 5:33 AM on September 24, 2009
That was pretty cool.
posted by Joe Beese at 5:33 AM on September 24, 2009
The Olympics should generally pick under-appreciated cities that need a popularity boost. When they pick big cities, the local residents are always whiny about how it is such an inconvenience to them.
posted by smackfu at 5:53 AM on September 24, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by smackfu at 5:53 AM on September 24, 2009 [4 favorites]
Oh god please please please please PLEASE don't choose Tokyo.
please?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:58 AM on September 24, 2009 [4 favorites]
please?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:58 AM on September 24, 2009 [4 favorites]
As someone who has actually worked on the Chicago 2016 bid in the past, I am fairly confident in the plan that's been put together. I'm not a fan of the way the financial guarantee process was handled, and I don't like the city being on the hook in the end. But that being said, the budget for this thing is really, really efficient. It won't be a $30 billion blowout like Beijing. Right now it's projected to cost $4 billion.
It shouldn't suffer the cost overruns that London and Vancouver are experiencing because it makes use of existing structures (McCormick Place, The United Center) and the other venues will be put in city parks where they can still be used after the games. Some of these structures are temporary or scalable, and some of them can be moved to different locations after the Games. This means the city doesn't have to purchase and bulldoze any land, the Michael Rees hospital being an unfortunate exception.
Hosting the Olympics in the US has always turned a profit, even if it's meager. The thing that's hard to get a handle on is the extended benefit to the local economy. But with things the way they are, I think this city could really use the extra jobs and global exposure.
posted by cusack at 6:18 AM on September 24, 2009 [3 favorites]
It shouldn't suffer the cost overruns that London and Vancouver are experiencing because it makes use of existing structures (McCormick Place, The United Center) and the other venues will be put in city parks where they can still be used after the games. Some of these structures are temporary or scalable, and some of them can be moved to different locations after the Games. This means the city doesn't have to purchase and bulldoze any land, the Michael Rees hospital being an unfortunate exception.
Hosting the Olympics in the US has always turned a profit, even if it's meager. The thing that's hard to get a handle on is the extended benefit to the local economy. But with things the way they are, I think this city could really use the extra jobs and global exposure.
posted by cusack at 6:18 AM on September 24, 2009 [3 favorites]
Can't they pick a city that already has the facilities to do this? Or do they have to build a brand new complex every time? Like, it's cool that the host city basically gets a brand new sports park out of the deal, but they really can't use it for it's original purpose again.
Seems like overkill to me, but what do I know?
posted by hellojed at 6:22 AM on September 24, 2009
Seems like overkill to me, but what do I know?
posted by hellojed at 6:22 AM on September 24, 2009
As someone who lives in Chicago, I see this as a nightmare and a coverup for our issues. It feels like a total "hey look at me and how great we are" when in reality, Chicago has too many serious issues that are being ignored:
crime
money
transit
unemployment
And my friggen god the traffic that would ensue! I work downtown so I see this whole thing as totally annoying. Does the US really care about the Olympics anymore? I haven't watched them since I was a kid and in reality, the summer games are boring. Hmmm tennis or bobsled? I'll go with the bobsled and reminisce to when I was 6 and was sitting on the arm of the couch pretending that was my bobsled.
Just go to Rio and go away already.
posted by stormpooper at 6:26 AM on September 24, 2009 [4 favorites]
crime
money
transit
unemployment
And my friggen god the traffic that would ensue! I work downtown so I see this whole thing as totally annoying. Does the US really care about the Olympics anymore? I haven't watched them since I was a kid and in reality, the summer games are boring. Hmmm tennis or bobsled? I'll go with the bobsled and reminisce to when I was 6 and was sitting on the arm of the couch pretending that was my bobsled.
Just go to Rio and go away already.
posted by stormpooper at 6:26 AM on September 24, 2009 [4 favorites]
It feels like a total "hey look at me and how great we are" when in reality, Chicago has too many serious issues that are being ignored:
Worked for Beijing. The point is to get people to like the city without actually fixing the problems.
posted by smackfu at 6:30 AM on September 24, 2009
Worked for Beijing. The point is to get people to like the city without actually fixing the problems.
posted by smackfu at 6:30 AM on September 24, 2009
This is true, but NBC bankrolls the Olympics. That means the IOC can't keep it out of the ratings-friendly time zones for too many goes before bringing it back.
Yeah, but I bet that even if 2016 goes to Chicago, NBC would still show "live" events on tape delay, padding them out with Bob Costas and useless human interest pieces.
posted by Spatch at 6:53 AM on September 24, 2009 [1 favorite]
Yeah, but I bet that even if 2016 goes to Chicago, NBC would still show "live" events on tape delay, padding them out with Bob Costas and useless human interest pieces.
posted by Spatch at 6:53 AM on September 24, 2009 [1 favorite]
I don't care who gets it, but by god, they better come up with a real logo this time.
London, you let me down. That one logo wiped out all the design goodness you have ever represented. Everything from Eric Gill, to the Underground Roundel, to the credits on The Prisoner, all that great typographic and graphic design history: Gone.
Plus, I'll never be able to look at Lisa Simpson the same again...
posted by 1f2frfbf at 7:02 AM on September 24, 2009 [3 favorites]
London, you let me down. That one logo wiped out all the design goodness you have ever represented. Everything from Eric Gill, to the Underground Roundel, to the credits on The Prisoner, all that great typographic and graphic design history: Gone.
Plus, I'll never be able to look at Lisa Simpson the same again...
posted by 1f2frfbf at 7:02 AM on September 24, 2009 [3 favorites]
I am a Chicagoan by no means supporting the Olympic bid. Like others, I think there are better ways to address systemic problems of under- and unemployment, building revenue and infrastructure, and addressing everyday problems in everyday ways rather than touting a once-in-a-lifetime giant circus as anything other than that.
However, the knee jerk responses I read above suggest to me that people have not read the bid, know nothing about the city either politically or geographically, underestimate our amazing if annoying major and don't understand what the Chicago bid has done RIGHT.
When Mayor Daley first was elected back in the dawn of time, he started preparing for the city's Olympics from day one. I am not kidding about this. A few years into new parks, upgraded museums, stolen airports, ridiculous overexpansion of hotels, hosting of the World Cub (wtf? in Chicago?) the convention center expansion boondoggle and on and on I said to myself, he's setting up for the Olympics. Lo and behold.
The city's Olympic bid does in fact use existing structures, because Mr. Daley has been planning this for years, maybe decades. I really believe that a lot of what he has done to and for the city recreationally for the past, what 25 years now? has been with the Olympics in mind. It actually displaces far fewer people than most bids do because of our visionary original planning, namely the "forever clear and free" lakefront, a nearly 30-mile expanse of recreational venue close to transportation, hotels and cultural institutions.
As far as traffic, get over it. Don't like traffic? Don't drive downtown. In fact, don't drive downtown anyway. We have probably the most walkable downtown in the world, and while public trans sucks if you want to get anywhere else in the city, all and I mean ALL public trans in Chicago leads to Rome, aka the lakefront, which is where the Olympics will be. With some huge percentage of the venues not only together along a stretch of lakefront, but actually walking distance from each other.
Anyway, like I said there are lots of good reasons not to want the Olympics. The design and preparation of this bid are not among them.
I can't believe I just posted a answer that praises the bid. Please send the Olympics to Tokyo and find a way to fix our schools and police force.
posted by nax at 7:15 AM on September 24, 2009 [4 favorites]
However, the knee jerk responses I read above suggest to me that people have not read the bid, know nothing about the city either politically or geographically, underestimate our amazing if annoying major and don't understand what the Chicago bid has done RIGHT.
When Mayor Daley first was elected back in the dawn of time, he started preparing for the city's Olympics from day one. I am not kidding about this. A few years into new parks, upgraded museums, stolen airports, ridiculous overexpansion of hotels, hosting of the World Cub (wtf? in Chicago?) the convention center expansion boondoggle and on and on I said to myself, he's setting up for the Olympics. Lo and behold.
The city's Olympic bid does in fact use existing structures, because Mr. Daley has been planning this for years, maybe decades. I really believe that a lot of what he has done to and for the city recreationally for the past, what 25 years now? has been with the Olympics in mind. It actually displaces far fewer people than most bids do because of our visionary original planning, namely the "forever clear and free" lakefront, a nearly 30-mile expanse of recreational venue close to transportation, hotels and cultural institutions.
As far as traffic, get over it. Don't like traffic? Don't drive downtown. In fact, don't drive downtown anyway. We have probably the most walkable downtown in the world, and while public trans sucks if you want to get anywhere else in the city, all and I mean ALL public trans in Chicago leads to Rome, aka the lakefront, which is where the Olympics will be. With some huge percentage of the venues not only together along a stretch of lakefront, but actually walking distance from each other.
Anyway, like I said there are lots of good reasons not to want the Olympics. The design and preparation of this bid are not among them.
I can't believe I just posted a answer that praises the bid. Please send the Olympics to Tokyo and find a way to fix our schools and police force.
posted by nax at 7:15 AM on September 24, 2009 [4 favorites]
unemployment
I know quite a few people, from architects to construction workers, who are really hoping for Chicago to get the games.
For the casual observer that isn't following the politics or the money, the increased traffic is usually the main gripe. I'm a bike commuter, so I don't think it'll affect me too much, but I work at a school in the south loop. We're near Grant Park and Soldier Field, and we all wonder if we'll cancel our summer sessions and close the school. I am hoping that if we get the games there will be a massive push to upgrade our transit system.
But thing I'm not enjoying is the continued reliance on Blues Brothers tribute acts to sell the city.
posted by hydrophonic at 7:22 AM on September 24, 2009
I know quite a few people, from architects to construction workers, who are really hoping for Chicago to get the games.
For the casual observer that isn't following the politics or the money, the increased traffic is usually the main gripe. I'm a bike commuter, so I don't think it'll affect me too much, but I work at a school in the south loop. We're near Grant Park and Soldier Field, and we all wonder if we'll cancel our summer sessions and close the school. I am hoping that if we get the games there will be a massive push to upgrade our transit system.
But thing I'm not enjoying is the continued reliance on Blues Brothers tribute acts to sell the city.
posted by hydrophonic at 7:22 AM on September 24, 2009
I don't know anything about the details listed by Mutant, but maybe one could analyze the long term economic benefit by looking at real estate changes? Atlanta bulldozed the unique downtown poor inner city neighborhood. Barcelona bulldozed the poor waterfront neighborhood. How much change occurred in Munich & Montreal?
posted by jeffburdges at 7:36 AM on September 24, 2009
posted by jeffburdges at 7:36 AM on September 24, 2009
smackfu: The Olympics should generally pick under-appreciated cities that need a popularity boost.
EDMONTON 2020
posted by hangashore at 8:06 AM on September 24, 2009 [3 favorites]
EDMONTON 2020
posted by hangashore at 8:06 AM on September 24, 2009 [3 favorites]
I'm guessing you meant Rio "Security Nightmare" de Janiero, though.
That "security nightmare" is hosting the 2014 World Cup final. Yes, it's a 12-city event, but still, they're going there and there are few security worries (especially compared to the continued hand-wringing over South Africa). Rio should be fine for the Olympics; they just need an infrastructure to handle the people moving between events.
The Olympics have never been to South America, so this is probably their year.
Chicago has too many serious issues that are being ignored:
crime
money
transit
unemployment
Uh, what? Compared to Atlanta in '96 Chicago is freaking paradise.
Crime rates in the US and Chicago are near historic lows.
Chicago HAS a multimodal mass transit system that GOES IMPORTANT PLACES and WORKS, something you can't say about any of the other theoretical American Olympic host cities -- Dallas, Houston, Minneapolis, Seattle, Denver, etc.
The Midwest isn't as wealthy as it once was, but most of that wealth is concentrated in Chicago, and it remains a major financial center.
As for unemployment, well, what you should be worried about is low unemployment, not high unemployment. Building venues and improving infrastructure will create jobs; the games themselves will generate ten thousand temporary positions. With low unemployment the wages on those jobs will be much higher, pushing costs up and increasing the burden on taxpayers.
There are good reasons to argue against the games going to Chicago. These four aren't any of them.
posted by dw at 8:13 AM on September 24, 2009
That "security nightmare" is hosting the 2014 World Cup final. Yes, it's a 12-city event, but still, they're going there and there are few security worries (especially compared to the continued hand-wringing over South Africa). Rio should be fine for the Olympics; they just need an infrastructure to handle the people moving between events.
The Olympics have never been to South America, so this is probably their year.
Chicago has too many serious issues that are being ignored:
crime
money
transit
unemployment
Uh, what? Compared to Atlanta in '96 Chicago is freaking paradise.
Crime rates in the US and Chicago are near historic lows.
Chicago HAS a multimodal mass transit system that GOES IMPORTANT PLACES and WORKS, something you can't say about any of the other theoretical American Olympic host cities -- Dallas, Houston, Minneapolis, Seattle, Denver, etc.
The Midwest isn't as wealthy as it once was, but most of that wealth is concentrated in Chicago, and it remains a major financial center.
As for unemployment, well, what you should be worried about is low unemployment, not high unemployment. Building venues and improving infrastructure will create jobs; the games themselves will generate ten thousand temporary positions. With low unemployment the wages on those jobs will be much higher, pushing costs up and increasing the burden on taxpayers.
There are good reasons to argue against the games going to Chicago. These four aren't any of them.
posted by dw at 8:13 AM on September 24, 2009
The Olympics should generally pick under-appreciated cities that need a popularity boost.
Are you sure you want to go down that road?
posted by dw at 8:14 AM on September 24, 2009
Are you sure you want to go down that road?
posted by dw at 8:14 AM on September 24, 2009
Hey, I'm not going to mock Tulsa. If they can put on a good Olympics, more power to them.
The 2014 games are in a city in Russia I have literally never heard of. Maybe it's Russia's Tulsa?
posted by smackfu at 8:26 AM on September 24, 2009
The 2014 games are in a city in Russia I have literally never heard of. Maybe it's Russia's Tulsa?
posted by smackfu at 8:26 AM on September 24, 2009
I can't wait for Chicago to not get the Olympics so I can see Mayor Daley cry. Although, in reality, he will probably just do his little angry leprechaun thing and lecture us on how we are bad citizens because we don't want our lakefront, parks and neighborhoods destroyed for his glory.
posted by Jess the Mess at 8:32 AM on September 24, 2009 [5 favorites]
posted by Jess the Mess at 8:32 AM on September 24, 2009 [5 favorites]
If Chicago gets the Olympics, Obama supporters will try to give him the credit. If it doesn't, Obama opponents will try to blame him.
This is going to be what happens to Daley -- except it's going to be the same people. If Chicago gets it, they will be mad at what was promised to get it. If it doesn't, Daley will have messed it up somehow. I'm no great fan of our mayor, but his loudest detractors make it pretty difficult sometimes.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 8:36 AM on September 24, 2009
This is going to be what happens to Daley -- except it's going to be the same people. If Chicago gets it, they will be mad at what was promised to get it. If it doesn't, Daley will have messed it up somehow. I'm no great fan of our mayor, but his loudest detractors make it pretty difficult sometimes.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 8:36 AM on September 24, 2009
ack. World CuPPPP. Don't blame me, I'm a northsider. C-U automatically ends in B (S). This is just getting worse and worse.
posted by nax at 8:37 AM on September 24, 2009
posted by nax at 8:37 AM on September 24, 2009
I doubt security in Rio would really be that hard to manage, I mean come on. Temporary full security isn't impossible. Like dw said, look at the World cup held in South Africa.
Still. I agree if we don't outdo China it will be pretty lame. Brazil is an up-and-coming country and giving them the Olympics will really be an opportunity show off, like China. I'd be for an Olympics in the U.S if we were going to outdo the Chinese, but if we're just going to pull some cheap-ass shadow then it would just make us look ridiculous.
posted by delmoi at 9:01 AM on September 24, 2009
Still. I agree if we don't outdo China it will be pretty lame. Brazil is an up-and-coming country and giving them the Olympics will really be an opportunity show off, like China. I'd be for an Olympics in the U.S if we were going to outdo the Chinese, but if we're just going to pull some cheap-ass shadow then it would just make us look ridiculous.
posted by delmoi at 9:01 AM on September 24, 2009
The 2014 games are in a city in Russia I have literally never heard of. Maybe it's Russia's Tulsa?
The Winter Olympics have a long history of showing up in sleepy little resort towns that are otherwise irrelevant. Sochi is not the outlier any medium-sized city hosting the Summer Olympics would be.
posted by aswego at 9:03 AM on September 24, 2009
The Winter Olympics have a long history of showing up in sleepy little resort towns that are otherwise irrelevant. Sochi is not the outlier any medium-sized city hosting the Summer Olympics would be.
posted by aswego at 9:03 AM on September 24, 2009
Rio's bid looks pretty exciting, and it's hard not to back their bid, given the long neglect of South America by the IOC. At the same time, I think that holding the Games in Chicago would probably be beneficial for the city, in the same way that those past events that put the stars on the Chicago flag were--leading to projects that make a difference in the long-run, but which are hard to accomplish in the day-to-day running of the city.
The big question for me is how the Olympics will help upgrade Chicago's transit system, and particularly how it will benefit the impoverished and very dangerous neighborhood around Washington Park. Seems to me like this area (where the stadium would be located) needs all the attention it can get, and it strikes me that, done right, the Olympics could contribute significantly to efforts to improve things in that troubled area of the city.
posted by washburn at 9:11 AM on September 24, 2009
The big question for me is how the Olympics will help upgrade Chicago's transit system, and particularly how it will benefit the impoverished and very dangerous neighborhood around Washington Park. Seems to me like this area (where the stadium would be located) needs all the attention it can get, and it strikes me that, done right, the Olympics could contribute significantly to efforts to improve things in that troubled area of the city.
posted by washburn at 9:11 AM on September 24, 2009
crime
money
transit
unemployment
There are good reasons to argue against the games going to Chicago. These four aren't any of them.
I think these were meant less as reasons that Chicago wouldn't host a kick-ass Olympics than as priorities that the city should address before devoting six years' worth of money and energies to a two week athletic festival.
Crime, low as it is, could always be lower, and I'm not nearly convinced that the old institutional problems of the CPD have been completely redressed. The city's finances appear stable for the moment, but Daley's Tax Increment Financing habit and a 10.25% sales tax don't suggest sustainability. Transit is expensive and will become more so if the CTA ever overhauls the aging system. We might argue about how best to address a 10.7% unemployment rate, but I would think that investment in long-term middle class jobs is worlds better than a temporary flurry of service opportunities and construction work.
Oh, and add education to that list of problems. I'd rather see the city blow $4 billion (plus overruns) on the overcrowded public schools than the Olympics. It might pay off, or it might be a tremendous waste; but I think the odds would be a little better than 50-50.
posted by Iridic at 9:17 AM on September 24, 2009
money
transit
unemployment
There are good reasons to argue against the games going to Chicago. These four aren't any of them.
I think these were meant less as reasons that Chicago wouldn't host a kick-ass Olympics than as priorities that the city should address before devoting six years' worth of money and energies to a two week athletic festival.
Crime, low as it is, could always be lower, and I'm not nearly convinced that the old institutional problems of the CPD have been completely redressed. The city's finances appear stable for the moment, but Daley's Tax Increment Financing habit and a 10.25% sales tax don't suggest sustainability. Transit is expensive and will become more so if the CTA ever overhauls the aging system. We might argue about how best to address a 10.7% unemployment rate, but I would think that investment in long-term middle class jobs is worlds better than a temporary flurry of service opportunities and construction work.
Oh, and add education to that list of problems. I'd rather see the city blow $4 billion (plus overruns) on the overcrowded public schools than the Olympics. It might pay off, or it might be a tremendous waste; but I think the odds would be a little better than 50-50.
posted by Iridic at 9:17 AM on September 24, 2009
"NBC bankrolls the Olympics. That means the IOC can't keep it out of the ratings-friendly time zones for too many goes before bringing it back. As cities from South America are taken more seriously as hosts, this will probably mean the U.S. doesn't come up in the rotation as often."
So if the games end up in Chicago, we can Blame it on Rio?
posted by Eideteker at 9:27 AM on September 24, 2009
So if the games end up in Chicago, we can Blame it on Rio?
posted by Eideteker at 9:27 AM on September 24, 2009
If the Olympics could somehow be used as an excuse to build the Circle Line I would be for it.
posted by shakespeherian at 9:56 AM on September 24, 2009
posted by shakespeherian at 9:56 AM on September 24, 2009
Hey, I'm not going to mock Tulsa.
Well, I am.
They complained about the heat in Atlanta? NBC likes the Olympics held in July-August, and typically that means 100F+ and dew points in the 70s in Tulsa. The athletes would melt on the track.
And there's zero infrastructure. They'd have to build a mass transit system from scratch, and that'd probably be a majority of the cost, and they'd be fought tooth and nail by a populace that's so libertarian they make Glenn Beck look like Lenin.
But seriously... there is a long history of up-and-coming cities using major events to boost the city, but it was mainly World's Fairs and exhibitions. Chicago's 1893 Columbian Exposition (the "White City" mentioned above). St. Louis' 1904 World's Fair and Olympics. Seattle's two world's fairs in 1909 and 1962. San Francisco's 1915 exhibition that announced they had recovered from 1906. Spokane and Knoxville tried it with World's Fairs as well.
It's really only been since WWII that the Olympics has become what the World's Fairs used to be. You could argue that Melbourne was the first city to see the potential of a World's Fair being a way to put them on the world's stage and reshape the city. Tokyo in '64 was all about showing off Japan to the world. Mexico City, ditto (alongside the violence and rioting and brutal repression that came with it).
Going to medium-sized cities that want to be up-and-coming could work for the Olympics. I think the one problem, though, is that summer Olympics tourists come to see the sights as much as the games. Winter is all about the athletics, which is why places like Lake Placid and Sochi work well. If you're plunking 300,000 people in Boise for two weeks, though, they will get bored in a hurry. Chicago, Rio, Tokyo, they're great tourist towns.
posted by dw at 10:02 AM on September 24, 2009
Well, I am.
They complained about the heat in Atlanta? NBC likes the Olympics held in July-August, and typically that means 100F+ and dew points in the 70s in Tulsa. The athletes would melt on the track.
And there's zero infrastructure. They'd have to build a mass transit system from scratch, and that'd probably be a majority of the cost, and they'd be fought tooth and nail by a populace that's so libertarian they make Glenn Beck look like Lenin.
But seriously... there is a long history of up-and-coming cities using major events to boost the city, but it was mainly World's Fairs and exhibitions. Chicago's 1893 Columbian Exposition (the "White City" mentioned above). St. Louis' 1904 World's Fair and Olympics. Seattle's two world's fairs in 1909 and 1962. San Francisco's 1915 exhibition that announced they had recovered from 1906. Spokane and Knoxville tried it with World's Fairs as well.
It's really only been since WWII that the Olympics has become what the World's Fairs used to be. You could argue that Melbourne was the first city to see the potential of a World's Fair being a way to put them on the world's stage and reshape the city. Tokyo in '64 was all about showing off Japan to the world. Mexico City, ditto (alongside the violence and rioting and brutal repression that came with it).
Going to medium-sized cities that want to be up-and-coming could work for the Olympics. I think the one problem, though, is that summer Olympics tourists come to see the sights as much as the games. Winter is all about the athletics, which is why places like Lake Placid and Sochi work well. If you're plunking 300,000 people in Boise for two weeks, though, they will get bored in a hurry. Chicago, Rio, Tokyo, they're great tourist towns.
posted by dw at 10:02 AM on September 24, 2009
If the Olympics could somehow be used as an excuse to build the Circle Line I would be for it.
Well, London is using their Olympics to rebuild their Circle Line. I think the Olympics would provide the same excuse to Chicago.
posted by dw at 10:05 AM on September 24, 2009
Well, London is using their Olympics to rebuild their Circle Line. I think the Olympics would provide the same excuse to Chicago.
posted by dw at 10:05 AM on September 24, 2009
I could be much more positive about the Chicago bid if there was any talk of upgrading public transit. From what I've read there is no plan for this. I agree that Chicago has one of the best transit systems in the US but that's not saying much. Can't we aim to upgrade to at least a European standard of trains? Its not like I'm asking for Shinkansen or anything!
We've been burned on Daley's budgets for big projects before so I think its only reasonable that most Chicagoans find the budget proposal dubious.
I would be proud to show off the city to the world but every time I go downtown I can barely walk through the crowds of tourists. I'm sure the hospitality industry would love to have more people coming here but I think there's enough already. I'm sure Londoners feel the same.
posted by Bunglegirl at 10:07 AM on September 24, 2009
We've been burned on Daley's budgets for big projects before so I think its only reasonable that most Chicagoans find the budget proposal dubious.
I would be proud to show off the city to the world but every time I go downtown I can barely walk through the crowds of tourists. I'm sure the hospitality industry would love to have more people coming here but I think there's enough already. I'm sure Londoners feel the same.
posted by Bunglegirl at 10:07 AM on September 24, 2009
Crime, low as it is, could always be lower, and I'm not nearly convinced that the old institutional problems of the CPD have been completely redressed.
Even with the continuing problems with big-city police departments, you're still seeing crime rates at historic lows here in the US. It's so low that when there's any uptick the press and people go nuts. Last year Seattle had a rise in the murder rate and people started fretting about it... even as the press pointed out there were only 28 and that was 21 better than 1998.
The city's finances appear stable for the moment, but Daley's Tax Increment Financing habit and a 10.25% sales tax don't suggest sustainability.
Keep in mind that a lot of this is because major cities aren't getting money from the Feds and state governments like they used to, thanks to Republican dominance of the suburbs.
Transit is expensive and will become more so if the CTA ever overhauls the aging system.
That said, a working, effective, safe mass transit system generates jobs, not just from building out the system, but also by providing greater economic opportuinity to the neighborhoods it serves. A vibrant middle class requires a vibrant transit system.
We might argue about how best to address a 10.7% unemployment rate, but I would think that investment in long-term middle class jobs is worlds better than a temporary flurry of service opportunities and construction work.
Well, that is how ARRA is working, you know. The crucial thing for an Olympic buildout is that it must include lasting and sustainable infrastructure improvements. One of the big reasons why the local boosters here wanted Seattle to bid on the Olympics was it would have forced the city and state to address the shoddy road and transit system, a system that's effectively holding Seattle back from not only economic growth but smart economic growth. Of course, the cost and inconvenience meant no one would support it, but the idea is there.
The real question is whether the Olympic buildout would be done in a way that leaves a lasting, positive impact. Most of the money is usually spent on stadia that never get used again. Look at the Bird's Nest -- it's had ONE event since last year.
Oh, and add education to that list of problems. I'd rather see the city blow $4 billion (plus overruns) on the overcrowded public schools than the Olympics. It might pay off, or it might be a tremendous waste; but I think the odds would be a little better than 50-50.
See, there's the thing -- it's not a zero-sum game. If you spend $1 on building a stadium, you're not taking $1 away from schools. It doesn't work that way.
During the stadium building binge of the last 20 years in the US, there were a lot of people complaining that the money could better be served going to schools/the poor/etc. But only rarely did anyone actually attempt to, say, raise the sales tax to pay for improving schools. That seemed weird to me.
posted by dw at 10:20 AM on September 24, 2009
Even with the continuing problems with big-city police departments, you're still seeing crime rates at historic lows here in the US. It's so low that when there's any uptick the press and people go nuts. Last year Seattle had a rise in the murder rate and people started fretting about it... even as the press pointed out there were only 28 and that was 21 better than 1998.
The city's finances appear stable for the moment, but Daley's Tax Increment Financing habit and a 10.25% sales tax don't suggest sustainability.
Keep in mind that a lot of this is because major cities aren't getting money from the Feds and state governments like they used to, thanks to Republican dominance of the suburbs.
Transit is expensive and will become more so if the CTA ever overhauls the aging system.
That said, a working, effective, safe mass transit system generates jobs, not just from building out the system, but also by providing greater economic opportuinity to the neighborhoods it serves. A vibrant middle class requires a vibrant transit system.
We might argue about how best to address a 10.7% unemployment rate, but I would think that investment in long-term middle class jobs is worlds better than a temporary flurry of service opportunities and construction work.
Well, that is how ARRA is working, you know. The crucial thing for an Olympic buildout is that it must include lasting and sustainable infrastructure improvements. One of the big reasons why the local boosters here wanted Seattle to bid on the Olympics was it would have forced the city and state to address the shoddy road and transit system, a system that's effectively holding Seattle back from not only economic growth but smart economic growth. Of course, the cost and inconvenience meant no one would support it, but the idea is there.
The real question is whether the Olympic buildout would be done in a way that leaves a lasting, positive impact. Most of the money is usually spent on stadia that never get used again. Look at the Bird's Nest -- it's had ONE event since last year.
Oh, and add education to that list of problems. I'd rather see the city blow $4 billion (plus overruns) on the overcrowded public schools than the Olympics. It might pay off, or it might be a tremendous waste; but I think the odds would be a little better than 50-50.
See, there's the thing -- it's not a zero-sum game. If you spend $1 on building a stadium, you're not taking $1 away from schools. It doesn't work that way.
During the stadium building binge of the last 20 years in the US, there were a lot of people complaining that the money could better be served going to schools/the poor/etc. But only rarely did anyone actually attempt to, say, raise the sales tax to pay for improving schools. That seemed weird to me.
posted by dw at 10:20 AM on September 24, 2009
- Last winter they didn't plow side streets for MOST OF DECEMBER due to budget concerns.
- Daley, in backroom deals, leased their parking meters for the next 75 years for about a quarter of what they were worth.
- Let's not forget the "reduced-service days" mentioned above
- The posts above saying that Chicago's public transportation "works" are pretty questionable in my (daily) experience. The CTA has been on the verge of collapse for at least four years now with major outages happening frequently.
- Basically everybody BUT Daley has been the target of Federal probes recently. I can't imagine dumping a pile of money on these guys is going to somehow clean them up.
posted by mike_bling at 10:43 AM on September 24, 2009 [1 favorite]
- Daley, in backroom deals, leased their parking meters for the next 75 years for about a quarter of what they were worth.
- Let's not forget the "reduced-service days" mentioned above
- The posts above saying that Chicago's public transportation "works" are pretty questionable in my (daily) experience. The CTA has been on the verge of collapse for at least four years now with major outages happening frequently.
- Basically everybody BUT Daley has been the target of Federal probes recently. I can't imagine dumping a pile of money on these guys is going to somehow clean them up.
posted by mike_bling at 10:43 AM on September 24, 2009 [1 favorite]
it's not a zero-sum game. If you spend $1 on building a stadium, you're not taking $1 away from schools.
Unless you've signed a blank check and taxpayers have to cover the (very fucking likely) budget overruns, then yes, those dollars are being taken away from schools.
But only rarely did anyone actually attempt to, say, raise the sales tax to pay for improving schools.
Sales tax in Chicago is 10.25%. That's the highest in the country.
posted by mike_bling at 10:58 AM on September 24, 2009
Unless you've signed a blank check and taxpayers have to cover the (very fucking likely) budget overruns, then yes, those dollars are being taken away from schools.
But only rarely did anyone actually attempt to, say, raise the sales tax to pay for improving schools.
Sales tax in Chicago is 10.25%. That's the highest in the country.
posted by mike_bling at 10:58 AM on September 24, 2009
See, there's the thing -- it's not a zero-sum game. If you spend $1 on building a stadium, you're not taking $1 away from schools. It doesn't work that way.
But much of the money for the stadia will come from those Tax Increment Financing districts I mentioned. TIF districts, as they work in Chicago, divert increases in property taxes (money that would otherwise go to public schools, along with other social services) to a fund controlled, without oversight, by the mayor. Very much a zero-sum game.
But only rarely did anyone actually attempt to, say, raise the sales tax to pay for improving schools.
They did. Our sales tax has become to the highest in the country, as mike_bling mentions, partly because it has to compensate for money sucked up by the TIF districts.
posted by Iridic at 11:07 AM on September 24, 2009 [3 favorites]
But much of the money for the stadia will come from those Tax Increment Financing districts I mentioned. TIF districts, as they work in Chicago, divert increases in property taxes (money that would otherwise go to public schools, along with other social services) to a fund controlled, without oversight, by the mayor. Very much a zero-sum game.
But only rarely did anyone actually attempt to, say, raise the sales tax to pay for improving schools.
They did. Our sales tax has become to the highest in the country, as mike_bling mentions, partly because it has to compensate for money sucked up by the TIF districts.
posted by Iridic at 11:07 AM on September 24, 2009 [3 favorites]
I'm not against having the Olympics in Chicago as a general concept (I live there, btw, and have since 1992). My objection is the specifics of the proposed plan. Mainly I think many of the locations are seriously bad choices, and the plan does not address improving existing transit yet the chosen venues will provide NO parking so the transit system will be stressed beyond its capacity.
Example. The tennis venue is listed as going in a lakefront park area just a few blocks from my apartment. This is going to sound like NIMBY, but really it's just a bad, bad place for it. Pretty? Sure. But there's no room at that location for a major tennis event set up. As I see it you'd need at least one stadium the size of Arthur Ashe Stadium, plus one or two secondary stadiums large enough to hold substantial audiences, along with several other other small courts to enable such a large tournament. You basically need something the size of the All-England club. The chosen location? You could fit one large Ashe or Wimbledon size stadium with one court there, along with necessary buildings for locker rooms, etc. But that's it. There just isn't room for a full-blown tournament facility there unless you also bulldoze the bird sanctuary trees next to it, or the golf course on the other side.
(Seriously - I fired up Google Earth, and keeping at the same resolution I compared the overhead view of Ashe Stadium in NYC with the Lincoln Park site proposed for tennis. Ashe stadium itself would fit there - but that's it. No second court, no third, fourth, etc. You can't run a tournament on one court.)
Meanwhile - there's an ocean of parking lot surrounding the United Center, large enough that you could fit multiple facilities for a pro level tennis tournament.
That's just one example. People who live around Washington Park are certainly not happy at the plan to turn a huge chunk of their park into the olympic track stadium. (One wonders why a little more attention wasn't paid to this Olympic possibility when Soldier Field was redone years ago - the resultant new stadium is too small for the Olympics, too small for a Super Bowl, and widely lambasted as hideously ugly. A failure all around.) Further - "Northerly Island" aka the former Miegs Field is just sitting there almost all empty land. Want a site for a stadium that would give a pretty skyline backdrop but not anger local residents? Doesn't Northerly Island fit that bill perfectly?
IF Chicago gets the games, I hope we're not too beholden to the stated locations, and that there would still be a chance to wise up and get things planned for more appropriate sites.
posted by dnash at 11:27 AM on September 24, 2009
Example. The tennis venue is listed as going in a lakefront park area just a few blocks from my apartment. This is going to sound like NIMBY, but really it's just a bad, bad place for it. Pretty? Sure. But there's no room at that location for a major tennis event set up. As I see it you'd need at least one stadium the size of Arthur Ashe Stadium, plus one or two secondary stadiums large enough to hold substantial audiences, along with several other other small courts to enable such a large tournament. You basically need something the size of the All-England club. The chosen location? You could fit one large Ashe or Wimbledon size stadium with one court there, along with necessary buildings for locker rooms, etc. But that's it. There just isn't room for a full-blown tournament facility there unless you also bulldoze the bird sanctuary trees next to it, or the golf course on the other side.
(Seriously - I fired up Google Earth, and keeping at the same resolution I compared the overhead view of Ashe Stadium in NYC with the Lincoln Park site proposed for tennis. Ashe stadium itself would fit there - but that's it. No second court, no third, fourth, etc. You can't run a tournament on one court.)
Meanwhile - there's an ocean of parking lot surrounding the United Center, large enough that you could fit multiple facilities for a pro level tennis tournament.
That's just one example. People who live around Washington Park are certainly not happy at the plan to turn a huge chunk of their park into the olympic track stadium. (One wonders why a little more attention wasn't paid to this Olympic possibility when Soldier Field was redone years ago - the resultant new stadium is too small for the Olympics, too small for a Super Bowl, and widely lambasted as hideously ugly. A failure all around.) Further - "Northerly Island" aka the former Miegs Field is just sitting there almost all empty land. Want a site for a stadium that would give a pretty skyline backdrop but not anger local residents? Doesn't Northerly Island fit that bill perfectly?
IF Chicago gets the games, I hope we're not too beholden to the stated locations, and that there would still be a chance to wise up and get things planned for more appropriate sites.
posted by dnash at 11:27 AM on September 24, 2009
As I see it you'd need at least one stadium the size of Arthur Ashe Stadium
Well, it's not that bad. Olympic tennis venues usually have under 10k seats in the main court with a couple of 3k or 4k side courts. For comparison, Arthur Ashe has 23k and a ton of luxury boxes, while Wimbledon Centre Court is 15k.
posted by smackfu at 11:52 AM on September 24, 2009
Well, it's not that bad. Olympic tennis venues usually have under 10k seats in the main court with a couple of 3k or 4k side courts. For comparison, Arthur Ashe has 23k and a ton of luxury boxes, while Wimbledon Centre Court is 15k.
posted by smackfu at 11:52 AM on September 24, 2009
kathrineg: Wow, so you get the increase in hardship for people trying to hold on to their homes, and you don't get increased funding for the things that matter. That's awful.
Yeah the TIFs are basically the worst thing ever. They're literally taxpayer-paid slush funds for Daley, finely distributed across the vast geography of Chicago.
posted by shakespeherian at 12:10 PM on September 24, 2009
Yeah the TIFs are basically the worst thing ever. They're literally taxpayer-paid slush funds for Daley, finely distributed across the vast geography of Chicago.
posted by shakespeherian at 12:10 PM on September 24, 2009
Olympic tennis venues usually have under 10k seats in the main court with a couple of 3k or 4k side courts. For comparison, Arthur Ashe has 23k and a ton of luxury boxes, while Wimbledon Centre Court is 15k.
Ok, fair enough. But..
The Athens Olympics had 16 courts: "the Main Court, seating 8,600 fans ...two semifinal courts seating 4,300 spectators...and thirteen side courts seating 200 observers each."
Beijing had "10 competition courts and six training courts".
Now here's the Google map of the proposed Chicago location. The best I can see is one main court in the center where the four baseball diamonds are. The two groups of 10 tennis courts I figure to each be the size of one side court (including a couple thousand seats). Then I guess you could get one more by putting it where those rows of parking are now. But sixteen courts? I still don't see it, without bulldozing the trees to the south (which as I mentioned, is a bird sanctuary. And trust me, there's a huge community of "birders" here that would probably chain themselves to the trees to prevent it), or you could sacrifice the golf course to the north - probably a bad idea now that it seems golf may be returning to the Olympic menu by 2016.
(Oh, and don't forget there'd need to be facilities for press, locker rooms for athletes, food/beverage vendors, restrooms for thousands - all going on a spot that's currently park land.) I just don't see it fitting in there. I just think somebody had a crazy idea to shove as many events as possible onto the Lakefront, without thought to whether they really fit or not, nor what the impact to the Lakefront environment would be, nor transportation issues, etc.
posted by dnash at 12:53 PM on September 24, 2009
Ok, fair enough. But..
The Athens Olympics had 16 courts: "the Main Court, seating 8,600 fans ...two semifinal courts seating 4,300 spectators...and thirteen side courts seating 200 observers each."
Beijing had "10 competition courts and six training courts".
Now here's the Google map of the proposed Chicago location. The best I can see is one main court in the center where the four baseball diamonds are. The two groups of 10 tennis courts I figure to each be the size of one side court (including a couple thousand seats). Then I guess you could get one more by putting it where those rows of parking are now. But sixteen courts? I still don't see it, without bulldozing the trees to the south (which as I mentioned, is a bird sanctuary. And trust me, there's a huge community of "birders" here that would probably chain themselves to the trees to prevent it), or you could sacrifice the golf course to the north - probably a bad idea now that it seems golf may be returning to the Olympic menu by 2016.
(Oh, and don't forget there'd need to be facilities for press, locker rooms for athletes, food/beverage vendors, restrooms for thousands - all going on a spot that's currently park land.) I just don't see it fitting in there. I just think somebody had a crazy idea to shove as many events as possible onto the Lakefront, without thought to whether they really fit or not, nor what the impact to the Lakefront environment would be, nor transportation issues, etc.
posted by dnash at 12:53 PM on September 24, 2009
Yeah, I don't see how it fits either. They do have a rendering on their site but I can't figure out how it maps to reality. Maybe it makes more sense to you as a local.
posted by smackfu at 1:22 PM on September 24, 2009
posted by smackfu at 1:22 PM on September 24, 2009
I was curious, so I downloaded the bid book and pulled out some of the images: site plan, aerial view. They do seem to get it to fit. Cost is $31 million... and it's temporary.
(I must admit, the bid book is Awesome. I can't imagine how much that must have cost to put together. English and French with full diagrams of every venue and course. Sad that so much work must go to waste for the losers.)
posted by smackfu at 1:44 PM on September 24, 2009
(I must admit, the bid book is Awesome. I can't imagine how much that must have cost to put together. English and French with full diagrams of every venue and course. Sad that so much work must go to waste for the losers.)
posted by smackfu at 1:44 PM on September 24, 2009
I think that they Olympics should just be held in Athens from now on.
And with mandatory nudity, too.
posted by Avenger at 2:50 PM on September 24, 2009
And with mandatory nudity, too.
posted by Avenger at 2:50 PM on September 24, 2009
Fervently seconding flapjax. I have not yet met a single person of any age, profession or nationality living in or near Tokyo who likes the idea of holding the Olympics here.
posted by No-sword at 3:07 PM on September 24, 2009
posted by No-sword at 3:07 PM on September 24, 2009
There is only so much money out there. Really. This is like saying "oh, if you spend $20 on crack, it's not like you're taking $20 away from feeding your children". Yes, if that's a significant amount of money relative to your budget, you are.
The key thing is whether it's a significant amount of money. If you're pulling the $20 from your disposable income, it's not a zero-sum game.
Yes, there is only so much money, but where that money comes from makes a huge amount of difference. For example, most school districts get their local capital and operating money from three sources: Federal grants, state budgets, and a local taxation base that's usually based on property taxes. If a sports team comes along and wants to get a local government to float bonds based on sales tax revenue, that will not affect school funding one iota. If they were to try and tap property taxes or the state's general fund, then yes, you'd potentially be pulling money from kids, but even then it's still not a 1-1 relationship, maybe a 1-.20 relationship (which could still be a lot given how individual districts are funded).
The issue comes when populace feels like it's overtaxed. But that depends on the benefits. If they're paying a 10% sales tax but getting solid services back from it, they won't complain. If they feel like it's just flowing into the back pockets of the mayor's cronies... they will bitch. But in theory, you could tax 100% of income IF people felt like that 100% was being used properly. It's never going to happen, but it could.
Sure, you can squeeze more money out of the taxpayers, and I don't know what your other taxes are like, but a 10.7% sales tax is enormous and increasing it to produce wasteful bullshit will funnel money from the poor to the wealthy, corrupt idiots in charge and their friends.
Seattle's sales tax is 9.5%, 10% for restaurants and bars. Property taxes are obscene. But at the same time, Washington has no income tax, which is a blessing and a curse, since it means a lower tax rate but also an overall regressive tax regime.
There's a lot of talk about "corruption" locally, but in truth the politicians aren't really lining their pockets. What's really happening is a broken taxation system and a constitution that dictates where most of that money goes, combined with an initiative and referendum system that leads to a lot of "state provided free ponies!" crap that drains the coffers.
All that to say that a 10.7% sales tax, in itself, isn't really a problem. The problem comes when the leaders in charge don't listen to the taxpayers when they start asking where the money is going.
Not necessarily less burdensome--the housing bubble has led to a lot of overvaluation of properties and the resultant increases in property taxes are particularly hard on fixed-income people who have owned their homes for a long time. I am not completely familiar with Chicago's system, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
Chicago's system I believe is like every other system. On the one hand, Chicago didn't get hit with the bubble the way places like Phoenix or Las Vegas did, so prices didn't rise too high and haven't fallen too much. On the other hand, they did fall, as they did across Illinois, and that's meant less money all around.
All that to say that you have to look at the entire system to understand what's going on. Divert the $4B for the Olympics to education? Well, where's the $4B coming from to begin with? And if you're using it for operating capital, what happens when it runs out? Wouldn't it be easier/better to increase taxes for a capital bond issue, or to create a permanent source of operating capital?
I just have problems with people who think that because you're spending money on A you can't spend it on B. It's true when it is a straight swap (you only have $20 -- crack or food?) but a lot of times it's used to create false choices, e.g. when people complain that libraries are underfunded and have nice buildings, so why don't they just divert the money away from new buildings? (We've been through a lot of this in Seattle, and it's hard to explain that we issued bonds to rebuild the library system, but unlike other cities the SPL gets its money from the city's annual budget and has no permanent source of funding, and using bonds to pay for an operating budget is a really lousy idea financially.)
Is Chicago getting the Olympics a good idea? It is if the cost creates lasting improvements for the city and in the long term generates investment. But right now it's hard to tell if it will. Past Olympics suggest it's a mixed bag, and if they're really not going to upgrade The El for the Olympics, it's hard to see where the actual improvements will be.
posted by dw at 5:17 PM on September 24, 2009
The key thing is whether it's a significant amount of money. If you're pulling the $20 from your disposable income, it's not a zero-sum game.
Yes, there is only so much money, but where that money comes from makes a huge amount of difference. For example, most school districts get their local capital and operating money from three sources: Federal grants, state budgets, and a local taxation base that's usually based on property taxes. If a sports team comes along and wants to get a local government to float bonds based on sales tax revenue, that will not affect school funding one iota. If they were to try and tap property taxes or the state's general fund, then yes, you'd potentially be pulling money from kids, but even then it's still not a 1-1 relationship, maybe a 1-.20 relationship (which could still be a lot given how individual districts are funded).
The issue comes when populace feels like it's overtaxed. But that depends on the benefits. If they're paying a 10% sales tax but getting solid services back from it, they won't complain. If they feel like it's just flowing into the back pockets of the mayor's cronies... they will bitch. But in theory, you could tax 100% of income IF people felt like that 100% was being used properly. It's never going to happen, but it could.
Sure, you can squeeze more money out of the taxpayers, and I don't know what your other taxes are like, but a 10.7% sales tax is enormous and increasing it to produce wasteful bullshit will funnel money from the poor to the wealthy, corrupt idiots in charge and their friends.
Seattle's sales tax is 9.5%, 10% for restaurants and bars. Property taxes are obscene. But at the same time, Washington has no income tax, which is a blessing and a curse, since it means a lower tax rate but also an overall regressive tax regime.
There's a lot of talk about "corruption" locally, but in truth the politicians aren't really lining their pockets. What's really happening is a broken taxation system and a constitution that dictates where most of that money goes, combined with an initiative and referendum system that leads to a lot of "state provided free ponies!" crap that drains the coffers.
All that to say that a 10.7% sales tax, in itself, isn't really a problem. The problem comes when the leaders in charge don't listen to the taxpayers when they start asking where the money is going.
Not necessarily less burdensome--the housing bubble has led to a lot of overvaluation of properties and the resultant increases in property taxes are particularly hard on fixed-income people who have owned their homes for a long time. I am not completely familiar with Chicago's system, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
Chicago's system I believe is like every other system. On the one hand, Chicago didn't get hit with the bubble the way places like Phoenix or Las Vegas did, so prices didn't rise too high and haven't fallen too much. On the other hand, they did fall, as they did across Illinois, and that's meant less money all around.
All that to say that you have to look at the entire system to understand what's going on. Divert the $4B for the Olympics to education? Well, where's the $4B coming from to begin with? And if you're using it for operating capital, what happens when it runs out? Wouldn't it be easier/better to increase taxes for a capital bond issue, or to create a permanent source of operating capital?
I just have problems with people who think that because you're spending money on A you can't spend it on B. It's true when it is a straight swap (you only have $20 -- crack or food?) but a lot of times it's used to create false choices, e.g. when people complain that libraries are underfunded and have nice buildings, so why don't they just divert the money away from new buildings? (We've been through a lot of this in Seattle, and it's hard to explain that we issued bonds to rebuild the library system, but unlike other cities the SPL gets its money from the city's annual budget and has no permanent source of funding, and using bonds to pay for an operating budget is a really lousy idea financially.)
Is Chicago getting the Olympics a good idea? It is if the cost creates lasting improvements for the city and in the long term generates investment. But right now it's hard to tell if it will. Past Olympics suggest it's a mixed bag, and if they're really not going to upgrade The El for the Olympics, it's hard to see where the actual improvements will be.
posted by dw at 5:17 PM on September 24, 2009
And the locals never seem to want the Olympics. Denver famously turned down the '76 Winter Olympics. There was a lot of opposition in Toronto to their 2012 bid, and there was considerable opposition within Vancouver that died down in the initial years after the bid but has picked up again recently.
posted by dw at 5:22 PM on September 24, 2009
posted by dw at 5:22 PM on September 24, 2009
"And the locals never seem to want the Olympics."
It depends how you define "want". That is, if 95% of the locals say "Do Not Want", we'd all agree that locals don't want it, and if only 5% say "Do Not Want", we'd probably all agree that they do want it. The question is about the middle zone, and where we would draw the dividing line.
Since that's hard, it's easier to compare how much each city wants it compared to each-other.
From the actual IOC report (any failure to add up to 100% is due to rounding by the IOC):
"I have not yet met a single person of any age, profession or nationality living in or near Tokyo who likes the idea of holding the Olympics here."
Well, now you've met one. To be fair, I really didn't want the Olympics in Tokyo, but certain things have recently changed for me personally that make me favor the Olympics being here: I am now working from home (translating), so the crowds wouldn't affect me, and a sudden influx of foreigners would result in a lot more translation work for me. So I'm now in favor (while I was quite opposed when I was working downtown), but I am definitely the outlier, and since I doubt that 55.5% of folks in Tokyo are in the situation I am in, I'm actually surprised that so many people support it. I would have guessed more along the lines of .000014% (that is, one Ishihara Shintaro plus one bugbread divided by 13 million people).
posted by Bugbread at 9:15 PM on September 24, 2009
It depends how you define "want". That is, if 95% of the locals say "Do Not Want", we'd all agree that locals don't want it, and if only 5% say "Do Not Want", we'd probably all agree that they do want it. The question is about the middle zone, and where we would draw the dividing line.
Since that's hard, it's easier to compare how much each city wants it compared to each-other.
From the actual IOC report (any failure to add up to 100% is due to rounding by the IOC):
Chicago Favor: 67.3% Neutral: 20.5% Oppose: 12.2% Rio de Janeiro Favor: 84.5% Neutral: 6.4% Oppose: 9.2% Madrid Favor: 84.9% Neutral: 8.3% Oppose: 6.8% Tokyo Favor: 55.5% Neutral: 21.5% Oppose: 23.3%So, depending where you draw the line, perhaps all of them want the Olympics, and perhaps none of them do, but regardless of where you draw the line, it's clear that Madrid and Rio want it more than Chicago, and Chicago wants it more than Tokyo.
"I have not yet met a single person of any age, profession or nationality living in or near Tokyo who likes the idea of holding the Olympics here."
Well, now you've met one. To be fair, I really didn't want the Olympics in Tokyo, but certain things have recently changed for me personally that make me favor the Olympics being here: I am now working from home (translating), so the crowds wouldn't affect me, and a sudden influx of foreigners would result in a lot more translation work for me. So I'm now in favor (while I was quite opposed when I was working downtown), but I am definitely the outlier, and since I doubt that 55.5% of folks in Tokyo are in the situation I am in, I'm actually surprised that so many people support it. I would have guessed more along the lines of .000014% (that is, one Ishihara Shintaro plus one bugbread divided by 13 million people).
posted by Bugbread at 9:15 PM on September 24, 2009
Like No-sword and flapjax, I'm not too keen on attracting the Olympics here. Tokyo doesn't need the infrastructure development; it already has very high name recognition internationally; Tokyo Prefecture and the national government really don't have the money to spare; and Tokyo's already had it once, and there's no real compelling argument that it must have it again, especially given the results of the Brown & Massey study referenced by Mutant.
Interestingly, the proposed event sites are situated on landfill islands in Tokyo Bay (Odaiba, Kachidoki, etc.) well away from central Tokyo. Of course, all those visitors have to stay somewhere, which means hotels in central Tokyo. But to Tokyo, an additional 500,000 people would barely be noticed -- yes, they'd stand out on the trains on the weekends, but for all intents and purposes so many people pass through the transport system on any given day half a million extra people is not much.
posted by armage at 9:42 PM on September 24, 2009
Interestingly, the proposed event sites are situated on landfill islands in Tokyo Bay (Odaiba, Kachidoki, etc.) well away from central Tokyo. Of course, all those visitors have to stay somewhere, which means hotels in central Tokyo. But to Tokyo, an additional 500,000 people would barely be noticed -- yes, they'd stand out on the trains on the weekends, but for all intents and purposes so many people pass through the transport system on any given day half a million extra people is not much.
posted by armage at 9:42 PM on September 24, 2009
500,000 people evenly distributed wouldn't be noticed, and, sure, in the mornings everyone would be getting on the trains at random points throughout the Tokyo area. But they'd all be converging on a much smaller number of sites (the landfill areas, Yoyogi, etc.), where the swell would be quite noticeable. If you take trains anywhere near those bottlenecks, it would be hell.
posted by Bugbread at 11:53 PM on September 24, 2009
posted by Bugbread at 11:53 PM on September 24, 2009
@hydrophonic -- Columbia will not close their schools. Why give up on income?
Crime rates in the US and Chicago are near historic lows. Then I need to stop watching the news that tells me every night some kid has been shot and they're off to trauma I at Christ Hospital.
Chicago HAS a multimodal mass transit system that GOES IMPORTANT PLACES and WORKS I'm not saying that we don't have a transit system. We also have a transit system that threatens to go on strike every year.
And now we have Oprah traveling oversees to represent us. Ugh. Why is Oprah the spokesperson for anything?
posted by stormpooper at 10:33 AM on September 25, 2009 [1 favorite]
Crime rates in the US and Chicago are near historic lows. Then I need to stop watching the news that tells me every night some kid has been shot and they're off to trauma I at Christ Hospital.
Chicago HAS a multimodal mass transit system that GOES IMPORTANT PLACES and WORKS I'm not saying that we don't have a transit system. We also have a transit system that threatens to go on strike every year.
And now we have Oprah traveling oversees to represent us. Ugh. Why is Oprah the spokesperson for anything?
posted by stormpooper at 10:33 AM on September 25, 2009 [1 favorite]
Yes, you do need to stop watching the local news. If it bleeds, it leads is never truer than there.
posted by smackfu at 11:10 AM on September 25, 2009
posted by smackfu at 11:10 AM on September 25, 2009
Rio wins, Chicago is eliminated in the first round of voting.
posted by smackfu at 10:20 AM on October 2, 2009
posted by smackfu at 10:20 AM on October 2, 2009
Yay! Tokyo escapes!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:48 PM on October 2, 2009
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:48 PM on October 2, 2009
« Older The Boy With the Thorn in his Side | Dog Hates Me, a comic Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by explosion at 4:06 AM on September 24, 2009 [3 favorites]