Chicago should make another bid for the Olympics (Paris, Avon: appointed, hotel)

[OyCrumbler]

Chicago's failed 2016 bid had a number of faults and the worries about the costs were considerable. However, the advantages listed for Chicago as a host in terms of the viability of its bid and the potential economic boost to the city were also considerable. The city's basically had mostly negative exposure in domestic news and negligible exposure in terms of international news and these can greatly affect the city in a number of indirect and direct (tourism especially, which is one of Chicago's best performing growth industries right now).

As stated in the previous bid proposal, Chicago has:

- the necessary transit infrastructure in place for a competitive bid and certainly has a lot more so than Rio
- a lake and beaches which means that the events don't need to be split up to a separate faraway location
- several high quality medical facilities
- massive number of hotel rooms and other accommodations to absorb the influx of people and will have significantly more so in the near future

In terms of costs, Chicago can take a page out of Boston's recent bid that looked to minimize costs via a greater focus on currently existing athletic facilities. In Boston's bid, a lot more focus was placed on the facilities of the many universities in the area rather than Chicago's focus on construction within the parks. Chicago can do the same in a renewed bid that minimizes new construction through these universities in regards to the athletic facilities as well as dormitories in the relatively quiet summer sessions for housing. The disadvantage of this is that the facilities may be distributed more throughout the city than the original bid (though not as far flung from each other as Rio's events are), but Chicago also has a lot of possible flexible temporary infrastructure solutions such as:

- running the Purple Line full length outside of peak frequencies
- running peak frequencies on other L lines
- running additional Metra trains where applicable
- creating a network of temporary ferry lines

So cost-wise, Chicago has a lot that can be leveraged. This, including the use of university facilities, is in line with the coming Los Angeles bid for 2024 for an affordable Olympics along with the use of pro sports facilities (Chicago's previous bid did include the use of Soldier Field, but the city has other pro sports facilities). However, Los Angeles's transit infrastructure is pretty limited and their facilities are even more spread out and without the possibility of temporarily increasing usage of existing rail lines nor having any facilities near the water such that a temporary ferry network can be used to augment things.

Moreover, cities such as Los Angeles or London don't really get as much from the image boost of the Olympics because these cities are already constantly in the limelight. They don't stand to gain much in terms of additional interest for people to relocate to or to plan visits to because they're already heavily advertised by default. Chicago, on the other hand, does stand to gain a real boost in recognition both in terms of improving its image domestically and in terms of being in the consciousness of people abroad. It helps greatly that Chicago is a remarkably photogenic city, especially in regards to the many sorts of aerial shots that are favored. There are the establishing shots of the city, plus the amazing shots that would come from the boating events. There's even the beach volleyball shots that would make known that Chicago actually has this asset within the city and with the attendant skyline as a backdrop. Chicago, probably more than any other US city, would stand to gain the most while having the resources already available to spend the least.

[Ace Rothstein]

Los Angeles is likely going to get 2024 and there won't be another summer games in the US for a while after that.

[BRU67]

Sometimes, the best deal is the one you did not make. Can you imagine what a cluster f the 2016 Chicago Olympics would have been with all the shootings and BLM protests? I shudder even thinking about it. We can ignore it and write it off but the rest of the world would not understand.

[TBideon]

Compared to the Rio slums and gangs, Englewood, Austin and West Garfield Park are paradise - and that's as bad as it gets here. I think the city could host the Olympics, even with BLM, gangbangers, and other anti-social types whining for attention.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by Ace Rothstein

Los Angeles is likely going to get 2024 and there won't be another summer games in the US for a while after that.

I'm not sure how likely it is to get it, but if it does, then yes, it'll be a while before the US lands another. 2020 probably would have been the perfect timing for Chicago, but 2028 works, too. I was a bit disappointed that Chicago didn't try for a 2024 bid. I'm sort of hoping that Paris lands it due to sentimentality for a centennial Olympics (as Paris hosted it in 1924) so it leaves room for a Chicago 2028 bid.

Originally Posted by BRU67

Sometimes, the best deal is the one you did not make. Can you imagine what a cluster f the 2016 Chicago Olympics would have been with all the shootings and BLM protests? I shudder even thinking about it. We can ignore it and write it off but the rest of the world would not understand.

The thing with the Summer Olympics, as we're seeing here with the Rio Olympics, is that pretty much as soon as they actually start, all of the bad things pretty much get paved under the positive coverage of the Olympics. Beijing had terrible issues. Rio has terrible issues. Coverage of those issues were extremely alarmist and constant. However, the games themselves have such weight that it doesn't matter so much.

I think the better part of the deal of not having won the 2016 Olympics is that it wasn't as cost-effective as it could have been. You can still build a few grand lasting monuments to the Olympics for the public good, but you really don't need that many. Taking a page out of Boston's bid and the 2024 LA bid of making great use of existing facilities in a renewed future bid is probably best overall. Get the coverage, get some of the legacy monuments, and pay a lot less for it. Seriously, among Northwestern, Loyola, UIC, UofC, IIT, Soldier Field, McCormick Center, etc., that's a lot of existing facilities.

[chicagobear]

*chortles*

[sfcambridge]

Never!!!!

[Avondalist]

The Olympics are almost universally acknowledged as a financial boondoggle for the host city now. If you want to throw a party, great, but it'll cost you. Plus with all these doping allegations the bloom is off the rose. Viewership of the Rio Olympics is way down. I think we've passed peak Olympics. The Olympics won't go away, but they'll change. There is talk of creating permanent facilities in Greece.

[ChiGal7]

We're all lucky the Olympics didn't end up in Chicago. Many of the cities who hosted the Olympics went into HUGE debt from having to build many million dollar facilities in order to host the games only to have those places fall into total ruin once the games ended. It's a humongous strain on the economy and infrastructure of the city in which it's held. Not to mention the severe burden on the residents who live and work in those cities. Increased traffic and overcrowded everyplaces in public are a tremendous burden that I think most people who live/work in those cities that have been chosen really didn't want in the first place.

And also as someone mentioned already, between the BLMers and the gang shootings which occur here on a daily basis, it's really not the kind of thing you want your city to be known for during the Olympics.

I'm really glad they didn't pick Chicago and I hope they never do. It would be the worst thing that could ever happen.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by Avondalist

The Olympics are almost universally acknowledged as a financial boondoggle for the host city now. If you want to throw a party, great, but it'll cost you. Plus with all these doping allegations the bloom is off the rose. Viewership of the Rio Olympics is way down. I think we've passed peak Olympics. The Olympics won't go away, but they'll change. There is talk of creating permanent facilities in Greece.

Originally Posted by ChiGal7

We're all lucky the Olympics didn't end up in Chicago. Many of the cities who hosted the Olympics went into HUGE debt from having to build many million dollar facilities in order to host the games only to have those places fall into total ruin once the games ended. It's a humongous strain on the economy and infrastructure of the city in which it's held. Not to mention the severe burden on the residents who live and work in those cities. Increased traffic and overcrowded everyplaces in public are a tremendous burden that I think most people who live/work in those cities that have been chosen really didn't want in the first place.

And also as someone mentioned already, between the BLMers and the gang shootings which occur here on a daily basis, it's really not the kind of thing you want your city to be known for during the Olympics.

I'm really glad they didn't pick Chicago and I hope they never do. It would be the worst thing that could ever happen.

Here's a survey of cost-benefit analyses for the London Olympics with a net overall economic benefit for the city as well as externality benefits that are harder to itemize. The humongous economic strain for certain cities isn't actually true given the net economic benefit. The big thing is that cities such as London and Chicago are actually fairly large and are developed with enough infrastructure that there needs to be relatively little permanent infrastructure to be built for the Olympics alone. I do think there are more economical ways to hold the Olympics, which is why I think modeling a renewed bid after Boston's is a good idea, to help stretch that net benefit a bit better by keeping the initial costs lower.

London's games are likely more indicative of what would happen with a Chicago Olympics than that of Rio or Beijing. It's certainly much more of a stretch for a developing country such as Rio which does actually need to spend an incredible amount in updating its infrastructure because a lot of what's needed simply isn't there on account of different levels of development between cities in developed and developing countries. For Beijing, a recent Olympics with boondoggle projects leftover, much of that was at the behest of the central government which intentionally flooded their games with money and hallmark Olympic facilities as a showcase for the "arrival" of China on the world stage--this isn't something that needs to be replicated for the Chicago Olympics. What's more, Beijing did not have much in regards to already existing athletic facilities simply because sports culture in China isn't nearly as prevalent as it is in the US or the UK.

Viewership of the Rio Olympics is way down on US television which is definitely true--with the caveat that digital viewership in the US has gone way up and has likely cannibalized much of the television viewership especially since digital viewership, especially outside of the official viewing channels i.e. things like youtube clips, allows for specific chunking of highlights or specific events. It's a difficult argument to make that actual overall viewership has gone down in regards to the number of eyes on the Olympics. I haven't spent time looking at international viewership numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised that for most countries, viewership has shifted strongly to digital, internet-based viewing and further away from television broadcast.

Chicago can make a net gain on the Olympics as fairly few other cities can in the world. Chicago has more to gain in a lot of ways and it has less to lose because of its already developed existing infrastructure. Having Chicago, for at least a period of time, associated more often with a truly international sporting event taking place on its land and shore in its most winning season is almost certainly better than a Chicago associated with protests, neighborhood shootings, and police shootings.