Chicagoist: The City's Final 2016 Bid: Surprise! It's Crazy Expensive

Sears Tower

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:03:28 -0600

Glad to see so much new ground is being covered in this pro/con Olympics debate. Definitely different than the 1000 other debates on this website.

Stealth

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:06:19 -0600

Don't get me wrong. In a near-perfect scenario, I wouldn't mind seeing the Olympics here. But it's too big of a crapshoot. If we don't reap the financial windfall from the games that they keep telling us we will, given our current financial state (which shows no signs of abating anytime soon), we will be, in financial terms, SCREWED BLUE. And not too many previous host cities of the Games have a massive profit to show for it, so...

BlueFairlane

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:58:08 -0600

If I'm still living here in 8 years, I intend to shoot myself ... or else I'll get a tan and drive around the south side until CPD does it for me. As such, I'm all for Chicago 2016. It'd serve the city right.

Slaphappy

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:54:15 -0600

The fiscal conservative side of me cringes at the thought of yet another Olympic Games on American soil, let alone in my backyard. Go Rio!

Albanyparkour

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:46:24 -0600

@mss2400: Stealth nailed it, but on top of that you have a city government that is MIRED in a culture of corruption that would make Boss Tweed feel right at home. Handing that big ugly beast BILLIONS when they've also got a thumb in Washington DC? Bad news. Daley and company see the city as succeeding perfectly fine. If you live in a white neighborhood with political clout. Outside of that, you're very much on your own kids.

Stealth

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:07:21 -0600

Besides, if we wait for all of our civil problems to be solved before we embark on any "big plans," we will wait forever. There are "civil problems" and there are CIVIL PROBLEMS. We are virtually bankrupt, selling off assets left and right just to keep afloat. This city is turning into a day-by-day operation. We've got a disgruntled police deparment, record crime... Yeah, we have CIVIL PROBLEMS. If there are "big plans" to be developed here, I think fixing the budget and controlling the rampant gang crime would be big enough. So, yeah, scrap the Olympic.

jimbo

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:02:08 -0600

There's enough motivation for Daley to get this done right - if he does, he'll have a new, sustainable tax base on the south side.

mss2400

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:01:14 -0600

I understand all the arguments against the Olympics, but if they result in a net gain of money and international attention for the city, then I think the investment is probably worth it. Besides, if we wait for all of our civil problems to be solved before we embark on any "big plans," we will wait forever.

matty

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:54:41 -0600

i personally think hosting olympics are overated. I mean, is Atlanta the international city they hoped it would be post olympics?

smussy

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:28:10 -0600

i've been cheering on rio since this whole thing started. see these two personal posts (including a duran duran parody!!) for examples. i just can't imagine why anyone can come with good reason for us to host now that all fans have been hit with shit.

kgvs72

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:15:54 -0600

Can we just privatize Lake Michigan? That would pay for the funding and construction of the venues, and taxes wouldn't go up.

Stealth

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:15:29 -0600

Just a couple of days ago some of the same people here were commenting negatively on the fact that the city can't even clear the sidestreets of ice to avoid running over third graders on their way to school. Until they can get that basic necessity taken care of, drop this Olympic talk. Really.

schwerve

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:11:48 -0600

matilda, in the boom market its been impossible to gauge material costs 2 weeks out let alone 2 years. its one of the major forces which have caused cost overruns and revised estimates which make you're eyes bulge. with the drop in demand for materials these costs should stabilize significantly and allow for estimates much more inline with reality than the dart-wall methodologies which are currently used. Even if the market recovers in only 2 years, chicago can take advantage of the low market to lock in prices/contract etc. so while I think you're skepticism is valid and warranted there are converging forces which would suggest that the current estimates are much more accurate than other large projects you've cited.

Albanyparkour

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:08:37 -0600

"New Economic Activity" Aw, fiddlesticks. I'd like to see some final figures on the "new economic activity" generated in Atlanta and Salt Lake City. Not counting the Chinese Tortur-lympics, they just lie anyway. This is giving BILLIONS to the friends of the Machine to built "temporary stadiums" and vast "olympic villages" where lower and middle income people will never be able to afford to live. Remember all that "mixed income" housing around cabrini green? Mixed means, you poor black people in your ruin on one side, the nice white family 3/4 million dollar condo on the other. See, mixed. Matilda, it's 3 for 3. Go Rio!

12XU

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:03:06 -0600

It's not as if all this money is going to up and disappear, these funds will fuel construction employment and will help boost the fortunes of the neighborhoods surrounding the olympic sites. To say no now on a poorly surmised guess that the current economic crisis will last more than 7 years is absurd. The olympics would undoubtedly be good for Chicago and would force improvements in infrastructure that would benefit residents for decades to follow.

matilda

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:49:44 -0600

Scwherve: Great points, and opponents such as myself must consider them. But supporters must consider how Daley operates on these big projects (see above) and whether the city or state can afford to put hundreds of millions of dollars into this thing. And also, what will materials cost, say, 3-4 years from now, or 5 years from now? That is, how long do you think the global recession will last? How much of taxpayer money are you willing to gamble on this? I realize this is all moot. Daley and the city's big-business subjects has decided what needs to be done, and we are all along for the ride whether we like it or not at this point, assuming we get this fucking thing, which we probably will.

JD84

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:48:08 -0600

It's a lot easier to stomach if you remove the "$," and replace the words "million" and "billion" with the word "hugs". I'm also still for it.

matilda

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:44:19 -0600

Standard operating procedure for Daley, et al: Decide Chicago "needs" something, come up with project that doesn't seem all that expensive to taxpayers, not at first, then regularly add costs in and taxpayer guarantees. Might as well have it go to something interesting and beneficial. And yes, I'm aware I'm over-simplifying it. Well, at least you are aware, but you realize the time and money spent on what is sure to be a massive fuck-up (this is Chicago, after all, and other cities have fucked this up, too--look at the history of cost estimates for London 2012) likely will result in less money and attention for full-time city residents, right? How people can support this idea given the recent dim history of other big projects in Chicago---Mil. Park, OHare runway, Block 37, CTA Brown Line overruns, etc--is beyond my puny brain. People want this from some misguided sense of city pride, apparently unaware that a city that works, and it cheap enough that one does not need a huge salary to live here, should spark enough pride. Think about that the next time you slip on the ice or have trouble stopping your car at intersections. Go Rio!

schwerve

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:39:48 -0600

the environment that the city will be building in will actually be very friendly for staying on budget. with the construction boom essentially over there are tons of contractors who are so desperate for jobs they'll take on these projects for cost. there are plenty of other factors to weight but unlike london, chicago won't be competing for materials and labor in a boom market.

xlprq

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:30:46 -0600

I still want them here. Yeah, I do. You think there won't be $945M worth of corrupt, delayed and overbudget construction projects in Chicago anyway between now and then? Might as well have it go to something interesting and beneficial. And yes, I'm aware I'm over-simplifying it.