Games On, Chicago
By Benjy Lipsman in News on Mar 8, 2007 2:00PM
This week, Chicago welcomed the U.S. Olympic Committee's evaluation commission to town to take a look at our facilities and plans as part of our bid for the 2016 Summer Games. With the USOC having already narrowed their list to Chicago and Los Angeles, the USOC's visits to the two towns this month will help them chose which candidate city to present to the International Olympic Committee when they convene their board meeting on April 14.
While Mayor Daley and Chicago's Bid Committee are clearly going all out to lure the games to Chicago, there are mixed feelings among Chicagoans and experts about whether hosting the Olympics would be good for the city or not. So where do we stand? We say, bring 'em on!
We wholeheartedly want to see the Olympics come to Chicago, and we believe that it would be great for Chicago to host the Summer Games in 2016.
We love our city. That's why we're here volunteering our time to write about it and all that makes it our home town. And we'd love to be able to help Chicago share our greatness with the rest of the world. Our beautiful lakefront and park system. Our breathtaking skyline and architecture. Our world-class museums. Our many vibrant ethnic neighborhoods. And our food!
Of course, hosting an Olympics takes a lot of money. And there are plenty of debates as to whether a city profits or not from hosting the Olympics. What does and does not get factored into the numbers? What gets spent, and where does that money come from? What money is generated, and who benefits?
After vetting the financial plan for the 2016 Chicago games, the plans have been labeled realistic and viable. The biggest expenses in those plans include a $366 million temporary stadium in Washington Park for the opening and closing ceremonies, as well as track and field. Additionally, over $1.1 billion will be required to build the Olympic village.
That's certainly a lot of dough. But the committee's budget plan for the stadium to be funded by a combination of Olympics-related revenue (ticket sales, etc.) as well as a substantial private donation — OK, we would feel better knowing exactly who this donor is. Private developers would build the athletes' housing, with plans to convert it to private housing post-Olympics. So the largest Olympic-related project wouldn't require public or Olympic funds.
In addition to the actual Olympic venues, the city would need to invest money on infrastructure to accommodate the influx of people. But our airports are already ready to handle large masses of people, and O'Hare expansion plans are already underway. Our mass transit system — a favorite target here at Chicagoist — could actually benefit from a huge infusion of cash to upgrade the system ahead of the Olympics and to improve the system in ways that could never happen under the current long-range planning.
We lived in Atlanta when it hosted the 1996 games, and we saw first-hand the ways in which the Olympics improved the transportation infrastructure for the city. And while done to benefit a month-long event, those investments remain long after the last medal is awarded.
And while these projects cost money, that money goes into the community as wages and material purchases. An Olympic-related construction boom would create thousands of jobs over the next decade. Those new workers then spend their earnings in the community, creating more economic growth and jobs.
Chicago's Olympics committee predicts that the games would generate an additional $6.5 billion for the metro area. This far out, that's admittedly a very preliminary number. And while some cite economic losses from hosting the Olympics, those cities cited were smaller cities with much less extensive infrastructure in place prior to their bids. Because Chicago has so many of the venues and nearly all of the transportation in place, the costs wouldn't be nearly as high.
Ultimately, looking at whether the Olympics are an economic boost or not is pretty complicated math. But how many host cities, after hosting the game, would say they wish they hadn't done so? How many cities were thrown into economic despair as a result?
Chicago has a lot to offer the world by acting as its host. We pulled off World Fairs in 1893 and 1933, so we have a history of putting on big shindigs and inviting the world. But it's been a long time since we invited the world to town. Let's have 'em back to see what we've done with the place.