[bnk]

How to show off Chicago
Leaders try to project revitalized image as the city strives to be site of the 2016 Summer Olympics

By Kathy Bergen
Tribune staff reporter
Published October 29, 2006


Standing before the gleaming "Cloud Gate" bean sculpture in Millennium Park, tourist Rama Rao Vunnam, a doctor from Hyderabad, India, stretched his arms wide, lifted his chin and smiled broadly as a friend clicked a snapshot.

A first-time visitor to this country, the 26-year-old came to Chicago to take some medical exams and look for a residency program, and to see a few sights along the way.

His image of the city prior to arriving?

"I had no idea, really."

His reaction after seeing some sights?

"I'm like in heaven," he said on a crisp, clear autumn day early this week. "Everything is fine, everything is good, the beautiful girls, the trees."

His complete surprise at the city's charms is common among visitors from overseas.

"In some ways, it's a hidden image," noted David Perry, director of the Great Cities Institute at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

The lack of visibility is a key reason that Chicago is fighting an uphill battle against better-known San Francisco and Los Angeles to be the U.S. bidder for the 2016 Summer Olympics, a contest where appeal on an international stage will be a heavily weighted factor.

If most foreign tourists know anything about Chicago, the images tend to be dated--think gangsters and meatpacking plants--or driven by movie and television dramas, which tend toward violence amid urban grit. Or they may conjure up a Midwestern stereotype, as in dull, plodding and needing some time at the gym.

"The extraordinary reinvention of Chicago over the last 10 or 15 years as a vibrant, attractive, dynamic city, in my estimation, hasn't yet been communicated to many people around the world," said Marshall M. Bouton, president of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

That observation is echoed by a number of experts.

Sure, there are exceptions, particularly among the ranks of globe-trotting business executives who may be well-acquainted with the city's revitalized core, its stunning architecture, museums and restaurants, and its latest smash hit, Millennium Park. A survey of Chinese business executives, for instance, will reveal positive views of the city when it is unveiled next month by World Business Chicago, an organization that works to attract business to the city. But in the broader universe, conveying an up-to-date image remains a challenge as the city battles to be host city for 2016.

"There is nothing like the Olympics--it's like a giant billboard that will be seen around the world," said Bouton. "It will reframe the city."

The other two cities, he notes, have had their images polished in recent years.

"I think San Francisco got a kind of rebranding, or an updating in its branding, in the 1990s, as a result of the dot-com revolution and the rise of Silicon Valley," Bouton said. "That kind of spread to San Francisco.

"And Los Angeles gets rebranded every day. It has Hollywood, the great mythmaking factory of the world," he said. "Chicago, with the exception of Michael Jordan, hasn't had that kind of phenomenon in the past couple of decades."

And perception translates into numbers.

Chicago tends to be a second or third visit for international travelers, state tourism officials concede. The city drew about half as many international visitors as either West Coast city last year.

The $1 million spent annually to market Chicago and Illinois to overseas tourists is less than one-sixth of what Los Angeles spends, not counting the marketing machines associated with Universal Studios and Disneyland. And while Illinois' overseas marketing budget is equal to that of San Francisco's, that city is less than one-third the size of Chicago.



Sophisticated selectors

But the orchestrators of Chicago's bid for the 2016 Summer Games are undaunted. They say the U.S. Olympic Committee, which will decide whether to float a U.S. bid, and the International Olympic Committee, which will make the ultimate selection, are made up of sophisticated, well-traveled people who will have an up-to-date view of the city.

"Chicago won't be a surprise for them," said Patrick Sandusky, a spokesman for the Chicago 2016 Committee. "What they need to be convinced of is that Chicago can be a great host for the Games, and not necessarily that Chicago is a great tourist destination, which it is in its own right."

Still, part of that equation will be the city's ability to draw spectators, and how well it could hold its own against global rivals that could include Tokyo, Madrid and Rio de Janeiro.

"The farther away you get, the less people know," said Carolyn Kae Phillips, director of strategic initiatives for World Business Chicago, a not-for-profit economic development agency promoting the region. "There's still that Al Capone thing hanging out there . . . and sometimes Michael Jordan."

And sometimes, image is formed by "too many movies with `L' tracks and snow, or `ER' or something," she said.

Indeed, that was the case for Marian Faustino, a 21-year-old student and ballet dancer from Manila, who was strolling through Millennium Park Wednesday with two former colleagues from Ballet Manila, Alexa Sayson, who now lives in New York, and Christine Rocas, who now dances with the Joffrey Ballet in Chicago.

"I thought Chicago would be like what you see on TV--`ER,' `Chicago Hope'--it seemed like it would be a dangerous place, actually," said Faustino. "Now that I'm here, it seems like a nice place, a lot safer than I thought. . . . I'd like to live here."

Closer to home, Chicago projects an image that's short on pizazz, and somewhat out of sync with the dramatic transformation taking place in the central city, where the birth of Millennium Park is the latest tourist magnet.

A 2004 study on how to rebrand Chicago by World Business Chicago, the Kellogg School of Management and Prophet, a branding consultancy, undertook the intriguing task of personifying the city's image, based on input from consuls general, local and national business executives, Chicago workers and MBA students.

Two personas emerged, both male, middle-age, no-nonsense, fair-minded and a bit bland--quite a contrast to the glitzy glamor of Los Angeles or the quirky romance of San Francisco.

The blue-collar version was a slightly overweight, beer-drinking guy with a thick Chicago accent--think "da Bears" guys from Saturday Night Live. The white-collar version was a conservative man in a suit and tie, hurrying to a meeting while talking on his cell phone.

Think about a rough-and-tumble, young-at-heart group of guys whose members could resemble Dennis Franz, Harrison Ford, George Wendt, Bill Murray, George Clooney, Robert DeNiro, Tom Hanks, and Mayor Richard Daley, the study noted in one of its more light-hearted assertions.



Rave review

Since the study came out, Chicago has made strides in painting a more current picture of itself, Phillips said, pointing to Mayor Richard Daley's recent trips to Beijing, Athens and London, all of which are Olympics host cities.

In March the city got a significant image boost from The Economist magazine, which published an extensive case study on how the city successfully reinvented itself after a period of industrial decline, economic erosion and racial tension.

The article cited the real estate development boom in the central city, the successful wooing of Boeing Co. headquarters, the growth in the futures and derivatives markets and the decision to expand O'Hare International Airport as signs of economic vigor.

Phillips, of World Business Chicago, saw the article as the type of positive image-building that money can't buy.

Jan Kostner, deputy director of the Illinois Bureau of Tourism, says the growing buzz is showing up in the numbers, with an 11.5 percent rise in international visitors last year, for instance.

Hoteliers would like to see bigger governmental budgets for international marketing, said Marc Gordon, president of the Illinois Hotel & Lodging Association.

"Chicago is a great international visit, but it just doesn't get good play," he said. "A lot of people don't know about us, and then they hear ridiculous things, like [the city] banning foie gras."

And to further enhance its image, the city needs to maintain its position as a convention center, heighten awareness of its architectural excellence, and push forward on lakefront improvements, including a remake at Navy Pier and the creation of a park at the former Meigs Field, said Costas Spirou, a professor of social science at National-Louis University who is co-authoring a book on how Chicago is reinventing itself.

At this point, it seems, even visitors who know Chicago is famous for its architecture find themselves surprised when they get here.

Peter Hutta, a 26-year-old visitor from Bratislava, Slovakia, was visiting Chicago last week for the second time, taking in Millennium Park and the downtown skyline.

He recalled the sense of awe on his first visit here, in 2002, when he was a student traveling with friends.

"It was the huge buildings, the Sears Tower," recalls Hutta, who makes his living financing historic renovation projects. "In Bratislava the tallest buildings are about 30 floors. With [100-plus] floors at the Sears Tower, we were impressed."

Chicago's boosters are gratified to hear about visitors being wowed. But they have dreams of more.

"It would be nice to get to a place where people knew about the city and wouldn't be so shocked when they get here," mused Phillips, of World Business Chicago.

----------

kbergen@tribune.com

[LA21st]

You really get the sense the world is starting to discover the "new Chicago" more every day.
You see more international tourists milling about. Shangri-La's first United States hotel will be in Chicago, not NYC or LA. I think there is some 5 Star hotel from Paris that is trying to put its first American hotel in Chicago. Irish, British and Middle Eastern developers are coming. Its only a matter of time before the new image is projected around the world.

[Chicago2020]

WEBSITE HAS BEEN UPDATED

http://www.chicago2016.org/

[Attrill]

One thing I love about the website is how they feature quotes from everyday people. It gives a good feeling of the excitement around the Chicago bid.

Chicago is definitely being discovered by more foreign tourists. I work in the same building as the Holiday Inn downdown (the old Apparel Mart) and it's incredible how many foreigners were staying there this summer - it seemed like twice as many as last year. Every one of them I've spoken with just love it (hotel guests and office workers share the same outside smoking area, so I've spoken to a lot of them!).

[Mr Roboto]

I dont think Chicago's image is out of date. I think the reporting, that Chicago's image is out of date, is out of date. I really think Chicago is underestimated in this respect, but its quickly changing.

[rbowk]

i hope chicago get the olimpics it would go good in that city

[scribeman]

I dont think Chicago's image is out of date. I think the reporting, that Chicago's image is out of date, is out of date. I really think Chicago is underestimated in this respect, but its quickly changing.
The larger problem is something like this:

I think this thread really illustrates well what Chicago is made of-- it's an exciting, buzzing, diverse city with a homespun down-to-earth authenticity to it. What a tour!

The quote is from this thread: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=119050
The quote itself isn't negative, but just from looking at pictures from downtown one must wonder why, just because it is Chicago, it has "down-to-earth" anything. It's cosmopolitan city like NYC or SF (and better organized than either.) But just because it's from the midwest it has to have a down-to-earth something, or maybe a "homespun" something else. This is what works against Chicago, and I have no suggestions on how to remedy it.

[Kngkyle©]

How to show off Chicago
Leaders try to project revitalized image as the city strives to be site of the 2016 Summer Olympics

By Kathy Bergen
Tribune staff reporter
Published October 29, 2006

Standing before the gleaming "Cloud Gate" bean sculpture in Millennium Park, tourist Rama Rao Vunnam, a doctor from Hyderabad, India, stretched his arms wide, lifted his chin and smiled broadly as a friend clicked a snapshot.

A first-time visitor to this country, the 26-year-old came to Chicago to take some medical exams and look for a residency program, and to see a few sights along the way.

His image of the city prior to arriving?

"I had no idea, really."

His reaction after seeing some sights?

"I'm like in heaven," he said on a crisp, clear autumn day early this week. "Everything is fine, everything is good, the beautiful girls, the trees."

His complete surprise at the city's charms is common among visitors from overseas.

"In some ways, it's a hidden image," noted David Perry, director of the Great Cities Institute at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

The lack of visibility is a key reason that Chicago is fighting an uphill battle against better-known San Francisco and Los Angeles to be the U.S. bidder for the 2016 Summer Olympics, a contest where appeal on an international stage will be a heavily weighted factor.

If most foreign tourists know anything about Chicago, the images tend to be dated--think gangsters and meatpacking plants--or driven by movie and television dramas, which tend toward violence amid urban grit. Or they may conjure up a Midwestern stereotype, as in dull, plodding and needing some time at the gym.

"The extraordinary reinvention of Chicago over the last 10 or 15 years as a vibrant, attractive, dynamic city, in my estimation, hasn't yet been communicated to many people around the world," said Marshall M. Bouton, president of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

That observation is echoed by a number of experts.

Sure, there are exceptions, particularly among the ranks of globe-trotting business executives who may be well-acquainted with the city's revitalized core, its stunning architecture, museums and restaurants, and its latest smash hit, Millennium Park. A survey of Chinese business executives, for instance, will reveal positive views of the city when it is unveiled next month by World Business Chicago, an organization that works to attract business to the city. But in the broader universe, conveying an up-to-date image remains a challenge as the city battles to be host city for 2016.

"There is nothing like the Olympics--it's like a giant billboard that will be seen around the world," said Bouton. "It will reframe the city."

The other two cities, he notes, have had their images polished in recent years.

"I think San Francisco got a kind of rebranding, or an updating in its branding, in the 1990s, as a result of the dot-com revolution and the rise of Silicon Valley," Bouton said. "That kind of spread to San Francisco.

"And Los Angeles gets rebranded every day. It has Hollywood, the great mythmaking factory of the world," he said. "Chicago, with the exception of Michael Jordan, hasn't had that kind of phenomenon in the past couple of decades."

And perception translates into numbers.

Chicago tends to be a second or third visit for international travelers, state tourism officials concede. The city drew about half as many international visitors as either West Coast city last year.

The $1 million spent annually to market Chicago and Illinois to overseas tourists is less than one-sixth of what Los Angeles spends, not counting the marketing machines associated with Universal Studios and Disneyland. And while Illinois' overseas marketing budget is equal to that of San Francisco's, that city is less than one-third the size of Chicago.



Sophisticated selectors

But the orchestrators of Chicago's bid for the 2016 Summer Games are undaunted. They say the U.S. Olympic Committee, which will decide whether to float a U.S. bid, and the International Olympic Committee, which will make the ultimate selection, are made up of sophisticated, well-traveled people who will have an up-to-date view of the city.

"Chicago won't be a surprise for them," said Patrick Sandusky, a spokesman for the Chicago 2016 Committee. "What they need to be convinced of is that Chicago can be a great host for the Games, and not necessarily that Chicago is a great tourist destination, which it is in its own right."

Still, part of that equation will be the city's ability to draw spectators, and how well it could hold its own against global rivals that could include Tokyo, Madrid and Rio de Janeiro.

"The farther away you get, the less people know," said Carolyn Kae Phillips, director of strategic initiatives for World Business Chicago, a not-for-profit economic development agency promoting the region. "There's still that Al Capone thing hanging out there . . . and sometimes Michael Jordan."

And sometimes, image is formed by "too many movies with `L' tracks and snow, or `ER' or something," she said.

Indeed, that was the case for Marian Faustino, a 21-year-old student and ballet dancer from Manila, who was strolling through Millennium Park Wednesday with two former colleagues from Ballet Manila, Alexa Sayson, who now lives in New York, and Christine Rocas, who now dances with the Joffrey Ballet in Chicago.

"I thought Chicago would be like what you see on TV--`ER,' `Chicago Hope'--it seemed like it would be a dangerous place, actually," said Faustino. "Now that I'm here, it seems like a nice place, a lot safer than I thought. . . . I'd like to live here."

Closer to home, Chicago projects an image that's short on pizazz, and somewhat out of sync with the dramatic transformation taking place in the central city, where the birth of Millennium Park is the latest tourist magnet.

A 2004 study on how to rebrand Chicago by World Business Chicago, the Kellogg School of Management and Prophet, a branding consultancy, undertook the intriguing task of personifying the city's image, based on input from consuls general, local and national business executives, Chicago workers and MBA students.

Two personas emerged, both male, middle-age, no-nonsense, fair-minded and a bit bland--quite a contrast to the glitzy glamor of Los Angeles or the quirky romance of San Francisco.

The blue-collar version was a slightly overweight, beer-drinking guy with a thick Chicago accent--think "da Bears" guys from Saturday Night Live. The white-collar version was a conservative man in a suit and tie, hurrying to a meeting while talking on his cell phone.

Think about a rough-and-tumble, young-at-heart group of guys whose members could resemble Dennis Franz, Harrison Ford, George Wendt, Bill Murray, George Clooney, Robert DeNiro, Tom Hanks, and Mayor Richard Daley, the study noted in one of its more light-hearted assertions.



Rave review

Since the study came out, Chicago has made strides in painting a more current picture of itself, Phillips said, pointing to Mayor Richard Daley's recent trips to Beijing, Athens and London, all of which are Olympics host cities.

In March the city got a significant image boost from The Economist magazine, which published an extensive case study on how the city successfully reinvented itself after a period of industrial decline, economic erosion and racial tension.

The article cited the real estate development boom in the central city, the successful wooing of Boeing Co. headquarters, the growth in the futures and derivatives markets and the decision to expand O'Hare International Airport as signs of economic vigor.

Phillips, of World Business Chicago, saw the article as the type of positive image-building that money can't buy.

Jan Kostner, deputy director of the Illinois Bureau of Tourism, says the growing buzz is showing up in the numbers, with an 11.5 percent rise in international visitors last year, for instance.

Hoteliers would like to see bigger governmental budgets for international marketing, said Marc Gordon, president of the Illinois Hotel & Lodging Association.

"Chicago is a great international visit, but it just doesn't get good play," he said. "A lot of people don't know about us, and then they hear ridiculous things, like [the city] banning foie gras."

And to further enhance its image, the city needs to maintain its position as a convention center, heighten awareness of its architectural excellence, and push forward on lakefront improvements, including a remake at Navy Pier and the creation of a park at the former Meigs Field, said Costas Spirou, a professor of social science at National-Louis University who is co-authoring a book on how Chicago is reinventing itself.

At this point, it seems, even visitors who know Chicago is famous for its architecture find themselves surprised when they get here.

Peter Hutta, a 26-year-old visitor from Bratislava, Slovakia, was visiting Chicago last week for the second time, taking in Millennium Park and the downtown skyline.

He recalled the sense of awe on his first visit here, in 2002, when he was a student traveling with friends.

"It was the huge buildings, the Sears Tower," recalls Hutta, who makes his living financing historic renovation projects. "In Bratislava the tallest buildings are about 30 floors. With [100-plus] floors at the Sears Tower, we were impressed."

Chicago's boosters are gratified to hear about visitors being wowed. But they have dreams of more.

"It would be nice to get to a place where people knew about the city and wouldn't be so shocked when they get here," mused Phillips, of World Business Chicago.

----------

kbergen@tribune.com

[wiki]

im not really shure about chicago been the host of the olympics in 2016 they are so many countries that are so preparate to be hostes of an olympics games that isnt usa, i think is time to go to africa in 2016 maybe south africa

[chi-townJay]

im not really shure about chicago been the host of the olympics in 2016 they are so many countries that are so preparate to be hostes of an olympics games that isnt usa, i think is time to go to africa in 2016 maybe south africa




^^Yeah right:haha: :haha:

[Chicago2020]

Video from CBS 2

http://cbs2chicago.com/video/?id=27321@wbbm.dayport.com

[Chicago2020]

Chicago Needs To Change Image For Olympic Bid
City's International Reputation Needs To Be Polished,
Say Some

Jay Levine
Reporting

(CBS) CHICAGO Chicago's Olympic planners head to California next week in their quest to host the 2016 games.

As CBS 2's Chief Correspondent Jay Levine reports, they will get tips on how to polish the city's international image.

Chicago's Olympic video showcases the beauty of the city as a setting for the 2016 games. But what the video shows is not how much of the world sees Chicago.

"The number one priority it's got to change its image. It's got to sell itself. I lived here for three years and it's a great city," said Ron Harvey, vice president of the Australian Olympic Committee.

"I think the perception is changing. We have another two and a half years to add to that perception," said Pat Ryan, chair of the Chicago Olympic Committee.

Ryan met with Australian Olympic official Harvey this morning. He and Mayor Daley have also met with officials from other countries, trying to learn as much as they could about the bid process. It continues next week, CBS 2 learned, when Ryan leads a delegation from Chicago to Irvine, California, near Los Angeles, for meetings with the US Olympic committee.

Chicago's chances?

Website publisher Ed Hula offers inside information that Los Angeles is viewed by some as "uninteresting;" San Francisco "romantic," with Chicago promising the "most compact" games.

Hula says Chicago and San Francisco "may battle it out" for the nod.

Pat Ryan says Chicago isn't worried about its two California rivals.

But if Chicago is the candidate, there's plenty of work ahead.

"You've got to start promoting Chicago as a possible Olympic city so if people say if it's going to be an Olympic city or it's going to be in the race, let's go and have a look at it," Harvey said.

Harvey, who's in town for real estate giant Transwestern, predicts an economic bonanza if Chicago gets the Olympics.

But that's a long way off. And a really big if.

Because if Chicago does get past Los Angeles and San Francisco, Rome, Madrid, Rio De Janeiro and Tokyo await the city in the next round.

[chiphile]

^I'm about sick of this crap. Yes, Chicago needs to MARKET its image, not change it, if the olympic committee is made up of uncultured idiots and hillbillies.

I thought the committee was made up of polished, well-traveled people who don't rely on movies to judge cities. This is another topic, but Chicago's lack of media is biting us in the ass once again.

International reputation.. lol, can someone say Atlanta?

Romantic huh? Can someone tell me exactly what that means and how that's involved with a mammoth logistical operation such as the olympics? This is getting ridiculous, this is supposed to be a true competition about who can pull this off in the most professional manner, not a battle of words.

[Chicago2020]

^^^^ EXACTLY!!! What image is there to change? Its a freakin great city, with so much green, a guy in camo can hide in it.

I wonder how China got the games??? They dont exactly have a blue skies and lolly pop image. Most of you know what im talkin about.

Look the point is, Chicago's image is fine the way it is, its getting better everyday. The USOC said in the beginning, that they are looking for the most compact games. Chicago scores high on that.

[skylife]

im not really shure about chicago been the host of the olympics in 2016 they are so many countries that are so preparate to be hostes of an olympics games that isnt usa, i think is time to go to africa in 2016 maybe south africa

This is getting old. Cities have to bid to get the Olympics, and all indications are that Cape Town will bid for the 2020 Olympics.

[Catmendue2]

^I'm about sick of this crap. Yes, Chicago needs to MARKET its image, not change it, if the olympic committee is made up of uncultured idiots and hillbillies.

I thought the committee was made up of polished, well-traveled people who don't rely on movies to judge cities. This is another topic, but Chicago's lack of media is biting us in the ass once again.

International reputation.. lol, can someone say Atlanta?

Romantic huh? Can someone tell me exactly what that means and how that's involved with a mammoth logistical operation such as the olympics? This is getting ridiculous, this is supposed to be a true competition about who can pull this off in the most professional manner, not a battle of words.


Thank you, best post yet.

[the urban politician]

^I'm about sick of this crap. Yes, Chicago needs to MARKET its image, not change it, if the olympic committee is made up of uncultured idiots and hillbillies.

I thought the committee was made up of polished, well-traveled people who don't rely on movies to judge cities. This is another topic, but Chicago's lack of media is biting us in the ass once again.

International reputation.. lol, can someone say Atlanta?

Romantic huh? Can someone tell me exactly what that means and how that's involved with a mammoth logistical operation such as the olympics? This is getting ridiculous, this is supposed to be a true competition about who can pull this off in the most professional manner, not a battle of words.

^ No more needs to be said

[chi-townJay]

Our image is fine,We DO need a damn commercial or something tho,I mean com'on this is CHICAGO not some shit city who's just now getting noticed,when you're watching the simpsons or whatever you watch on tv(in any state)you should see a come to Chicago ad during and after like what NYC,CA,and even MICHIGAN are doing and have been doing this for years,its like we don't get who we are.

[Chicago2020]

Are there any international commercials for Chicago???

[bnk]

Chicago's Olympic team heads to key USOC meeting


By Greg Hinz
Nov. 02, 2006

(Crain’s) — City representatives will head to Colorado next week for meetings at which they are expected to get their best indication yet as to whether Chicago has a serious chance to land the 2016 Olympic Games.
A delegation headed by former Aon Corp. CEO Patrick Ryan is to meet with officials from the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC) in Colorado Springs to review in detail what USOC thinks of Chicago’s proposal to host the games. USOC also is to meet with representatives from the two other finalists for the American bid, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

A USOC press release says the agency will “provide feedback” on each city’s proposal, and then hold a press conference with each on Thursday, after meetings on Tuesday and Wednesday.

“This is very substantive,” says Chicago Olympics spokesman Patrick Sandusky. “They’re going to get very specific.”

Scheduled to attend besides Mr. Ryan are about 10 technical experts that can talk in detail about issues from financing to facilities design, Mr. Sandusky said. Mayor Richard M. Daley will not attend, but Mr. Ryan is the mayor’s point man for Olympic planning.

Chicago’s proposal calls for spending about $2 billion in privately raised funds on facilities ringing the central area of the city as far south as Washington Park, which would get a temporary track stadium that would be used for opening and closing ceremonies. Housing for athletes would be built in what now is a truck parking area south of McCormick Place, with other facilities to be located at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

USOC has said it will decide by the end of the year whether it will submit the name of an American city to the International Olympic Committee. But USOC also has asked the three American bidders to answer some questions by Jan. 22 — perhaps an indication that USOC intends to bid.

Mr. Daley has argued that hosting the summer games could raise Chicago’s profile and image as the city increasingly competes for business around the world.

[bnk]

THE INTERNATIONAL SPORTS MOVEMENT

November 02, 2006
U S Olympic Committee

USOC to Host 2016 Domestic Candidate City Seminar

COLORADO SPRINGS, COLO. -- The United States Olympic Committee (USOC) will host a seminar next week for representatives from the cities of Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco, the U.S. domestic candidate cities for the 2016 Olympic Games. The seminar will take place in Orange County, Calif. on Nov. 7-9.

The two-day seminar will brief the U.S. candidate cities on the USOC’s long term vision and strategy, provide the cities with more practical insight on the future bid process and coordinate specific requirements for the remainder of the evaluation process.

USOC Chair Peter Ueberroth will provide the keynote address to the group, speaking about “The Promise of the Olympic Movement for Our World.” Chief Executive Officer Jim Scherr will speak about “Vision of the USOC Toward Beijng and Vancouver and the USOC Game Plan.”

“This seminar is the latest step in our pragmatic, but engaged approach to the domestic bid process,” said U.S. IOC Member and USOC Vice President, International, Bob Ctvrtlik, who will be kicking off the seminar with an overview of the process and the USOC’s expectations of the cities moving forward. “We are very pleased with the level of effort and commitment demonstrated by the cities thus far, and while there is still much work to do, we want to offer the cities the opportunity to delve more deeply into the relevant themes. Our ultimate goal remains to find a city with the best chance to win internationally.”

The USOC will decide whether to move forward with a 2016 bid by the end of year. If the organization moves forward with the process to submit a bid city for the Games, the USOC Board of Directors will make a choice on the USOC’s candidate city in April, 2007.

The Domestic Candidate City Seminar will include a variety of topics, including: history of the Modern Olympic Games, an overview of the bid process, International Relations vision and programs, communications guidelines, marketing opportunities, Olympic venues, building the budget and framework, and bid city partnership with the USOC.

During the second day of the seminar, the USOC will meet individually with each city’s representatives to provide feedback on previous questions and to conduct a general question-and-answer session regarding their bids. Press conferences with each domestic candidate city will follow the sessions.

For the next phase of the evaluation, the USOC delivered guidelines to each of the cities last week for producing a domestic set of bid books. The requirements are based on the International Olympic Committee’s Candidate City Questionnaire and include questions on all 17 themes in the international candidature city files. The bid books will be due back to the USOC on Jan. 22, 2007.

Following an analysis of the bid book content, the USOC will send an Evaluation Commission to each city for an on-site review. The USOC reserves the right to eliminate any city from consideration at that time or at any point in the process.

Final presentations by each of the remaining cities will be made to the USOC Board of Directors in April.

USOC 2016 Domestic Candidate City Seminar Schedule

Nov. 7 (Tues) Welcome

Nov. 8 (Wed) Opening Remarks, Bob Ctvrtlik, IOC Member, USOC Vice President, International.

“Coubertin and Founding of the Modern Olympic Movement,” George Hirthler, USOC Strategic Advisor.

“The Promise of the Olympic Movement for Our World,” USOC Chair Peter Ueberroth.

“Overview of the International Bid Process, Partnership Formation, Guatemala City,” Bob Ctvrtlik.

“International Relations Vision and Programs and Impact on the 2016 Bid Process,” Robert Fasulo, USOC Chief of International Relations.

“International Brand Positioning and Bid Communications Guidelines and Requirements,” Darryl Seibel, USOC Chief Communications Officer and George Hirthler, USOC Strategic Advisor.

“Vision of the USOC to Beijing and Vancouver,” Jim Scherr, USOC CEO.

“Bid Sponsorship and Marketing Opportunities,” Jim Grice, USOC Chief Marketing Officer.

“How Olympic Venues Are Used, Planning Requirements for Bid Books,” Jerry Anderson, USOC Technical Team.

“Building the Budget, Framework and Justifications,” Rick Ludwig, USOC Technical Team.

“Main Media Center Operations, Technology Integration and Media Services,” Sharon Kingman, USOC Technical Team.

Panel Presentation on Transportation, Accommodations, Security, Medical and Environment, USOC Technical Team members.

“Requirements for Bid City Partnership,” Jeff Gewirtz, USOC General Counsel and Managing Director, Legal Affairs.

Summary of the Day, Bob Ctvrtlik

Reception and Dinner.

Nov. 9, (Thurs) 7:30 a.m.,Candidate City meeting with Chicago, USOC International Office, Irvine, Calif.
8:45 a.m., Candidate City meeting with San Francisco, USOC International Office, Irvine, Calif.
10 a.m., Candidate City meeting with Los Angeles, USOC International Office, Irvine, Calif.

Press Conferences (at the option of each city), Hilton Costa Mesa:
9 a.m., Chicago
10:15 a.m., San Francisco
11:30 a.m., Los Angeles

Media Advisory

What: USOC 2016 Domestic Candidate City Seminar

Where: Hilton Costa Mesa
3050 Bristol Street
Costa Mesa, Calif. 92636
Phone 714 540-7000
Fax 714 540-9176

When: Nov. 7-9


Media Services: The USOC will provide a press conference room and a media workroom at the Hilton Costa Mesa. Specific rooms will be announced later.

RSVP To obtain media credentials for the Domestic Candidate City Seminar, please contact Maureen Weekes of the USOC at 719 866-2204 or at maureen.weekes@usoc.org.

Accommodation: To book a room at the Hilton Costa Mesa call 714 540-7000, or 1-800-774-1500 or go online at www.hilton.com. The USOC has reserved a limited number of rooms at the DoubleTree Club Orange County Airport. Contact Maureen Weekes of the USOC’s Communication Division at 719 866-2204 to reserve a room at the DoubleTree Club Orange County Airport.

Transportation: Media will be responsible for their own transportation to and from the event.

[chi-townJay]

Are there any international commercials for Chicago???


I've never seened one in my life.

[ChiArchie]

Our image is fine,We DO need a damn commercial or something tho,I mean com'on this is CHICAGO not some shit city who's just now getting noticed,when you're watching the simpsons or whatever you watch on tv(in any state)you should see a come to Chicago ad during and after like what NYC,CA,and even MICHIGAN are doing and have been doing this for years,its like we don't get who we are.

There are commericals for Chicago in other cities. I have family in both Detroit and Cleveland, every year I see both print and TV ads showing Chicago. But we shouldn't convince our contrymen but the world.

Come to think of it has anyone ever seen an ad asking you to visit China?

[Mr Roboto]

I really dont think Chicago needs commercials and such. None of those ads ever make me want to visit places. Its more the reputation of city by making the news, and those silly "Best ...." lists people pay attention to. I would much rather big things in the city like Millenium Park, the Calatrava Spire, the CBOT-CME merger, other buildings built etc, happen to keep getting us in the news. Those are the things that really count and will get the city's image everywhere in the world. And luckily thats the kind of stuff happening right now.

[spyguy]

http://www.globest.com/news/775_775/chicago/150370-1.html

Expert: Expect Landlord’s Market By 2008
By Robert Carr

...

Leisch was preceded on stage by Ronald Harvey, vice president of the Australian Olympic Committee, who had other words of hope for Chicago’s future. He discussed Chicago’s options for hosting the games in 2016 and what it could mean for the local economy. “The world attention is like hosting a Super Bowl each night for 17 nights,” Harvey says.

The games can be the catalyst to completing billions of dollars of local infrastructure improvements, business investment and future tourism dollars, he says. “Many people in Sydney thought when we were to host the games that it would be a waste, a white elephant, that we would only have short-term gain. Well, in 2005, we had 7.7 million visitors to our Olympic district,” Harvey says. “There are now 60 businesses and 6,000 workers located in the precinct, and six new building sites are under construction now with a development value of $550 million.”

[neuhickman79]

There are commericals for Chicago in other cities. I have family in both Detroit and Cleveland, every year I see both print and TV ads showing Chicago. But we shouldn't convince our contrymen but the world.

Come to think of it has anyone ever seen an ad asking you to visit China?
I've seen quite a few ads for China, Hong Kong, Australia, and many others. Maybe it's just the shows I'm watching! :)

[Chicago2020]

The article about Sydney and its economic boom after the games is very interesting. I wonder if the same thing will happen to the south side and the city. New jobs, improved infastructure. Revenue dollars from new business' and tourism.

[alex1]

After my recent 3 week tour of Europe I have now been in just about every major city in Europe, North America and central America and can say this discussion should not be about whether chicago is a worthy enough city. It is without question one of the more amazing world cities.

We also have a few friends staying with us from europe (london & Munich). They've been here for 3 months and 1 month respectively and they absolutely adore chicago.

Chicago's worse problem is not so much what others think of it but how its own citizens think about it. For sure we have a fair share of massive problems and other smaller deficiencies but most to all cities are no different in this regard.

The Olympics seem a good time to come back to North America by 2016. Ultimately it comes down to what the USOC's choice is, and judging by the final 3 cities that have made the final cut, I would not be saddened if Chicago wasn't chosen.

[BVictor1]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0611080185nov08,0,7532931.story?coll=chi-business-hed

U.S. bidders for 2016 Games banking on funding flexibility

By Philip Hersh
Tribune Olympics reporter
Published November 8, 2006

COSTA MESA, Calif. -- The costs of building venues seem daunting for the bid committee trying to bring the 2016 Summer Olympics to Chicago.

There is about $300 million for an Olympic stadium and as much as an additional $500 million for construction of other new venues and adaptation of existing ones.

And that does not include other basic Olympic costs: some $1 billion for an Olympic Village and between $1.5 billion and $2.5 billion for what is loosely called Games operations.

Chicago 2016 officials and Mayor Richard Daley have said none of that will come from the taxpayers' pockets.

That means it must come from two sources: the International Olympic Committee allocation from sale of TV rights and international sponsorships, which provide about one-third of an organizing committee's revenue; and income from national marketing, sponsorship and licensing, private donations and ticket sales.

The caveat is the IOC's feeling that those revenues should go to running the Olympics, not to building venues.

Patrick Ryan, chairman of the Chicago 2016 bid committee and executive chairman of Aon Corp., is not frightened by the numbers or the terms.

"I'm feeling quite good about our ability to fund the infrastructure required through private funding," Ryan said in a recent interview. "I'm even more confident today than I was when we started."

Some reasons? Chicago and the two other cities trying to become the U.S. bidder for 2016, Los Angeles and San Francisco, know the IOC allows significant flexibility in the definition of running the Olympics. And a U.S. Olympics in 2016 should attract sponsorship revenues significantly higher than those of any past Summer Games.

The Tribune has learned Chicago's current financing projections, which include having private developers build the Olympic Village for resale as residential and commercial space, add up to revenues of $2.6 billion by a conservative estimate. That number could be substantially higher depending on TV and sponsorship revenues.

Although IOC spokesman Giselle Davies said how funds are used "is not really black and white," it often boils down to something this simple: Adapting venues or building temporary ones can be considered part of operating the Games and could be funded from organizing committee revenues. Building permanent ones could not.

"There is a gray area relating to temporary facilities and the retrofitting of facilities specifically for the Olympics," said Bob Ctvrtlik, the U.S. Olympic Committee vice president in charge of the 2016 bid process. "We will work closely with any U.S. bidder and the IOC to make sure money raised for sports is going to the Olympic Games."

Those issues undoubtedly will come up at a USOC seminar for the bid cities Wednesday and Thursday in Costa Mesa, but each city already knows the basic parameters of the financing restrictions.

While Ryan declined to discuss any new financial particulars about Chicago's plan, citing both competitive reasons and the fact it is a work in progress, the Tribune also has learned it is possible Chicago 2016 could fund as much as two-thirds of the venue costs through organizing committee revenues.

"We are certainly going to be conscious of the IOC and the USOC and their definition of the gray area and their definition of the utilization of it," Ryan said.

Current plans for an Olympic stadium in Washington Park cleverly exploit that idea.

Chicago 2016 officials disclosed the approximate Olympic Stadium cost when they announced their venue sites two months ago. Because only 10,000 of the stadium's 95,000 seats will remain after the Games, Chicago officials might be able to use organizing committee revenues for more than three-fourths of its $300 million price tag.

"I think that's fine," USOC Chairman Peter Ueberroth said Tuesday in an interview at his office in nearby Irvine. "There is no competitive disadvantage in treading that line."

The trick is not alienating IOC voters with a plan similar to Atlanta's, which used organizing committee revenues to build the Olympic stadium later given to baseball's Braves as Turner Field. Although that made fiscal sense and avoided saddling the taxpayers of Atlanta with a white elephant, it left bad feelings with some IOC members.

"I think it's absurd to tell the city what it should do with its stadium after the Olympic Games is over," Ueberroth said.

Los Angeles already has an Olympic stadium. Chicago has addressed it by incorporating the remaining seats into a permanent track and field stadium. The current plan for San Francisco's Olympic stadium would be a venture between the city and the National Football League's 49ers. But that has yet to be approved by the city, and it's a marriage the IOC might find distasteful if organizing committee funds were involved.

San Francisco has not released financial details of its bid. LA2016 bid chairman Barry Sanders told the Tribune the Los Angeles area has so many existing venues that its additional costs will be $150 million, less than one-fifth of Chicago's.

The next two Olympic hosts, Beijing and London, both have governments underwriting an enormous percentage of venue costs. London also has the comfort of a government guarantee to cover any shortfall.

No U.S. city has that, but according to people familiar with Olympic marketing, U.S. bidders think they can attract double the $800 million in locally generated revenue that London projected in its bid book.

On top of that is the host city's share of IOC broadcast and sponsorship revenues. NBC paid $1.18 billion for U.S. rights to the 2012 London Games, in which time zone difference is an issue. The IOC has yet to open bidding for rights after 2012.

----------

phersh@tribune.com



Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune

[McStructures]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2654743&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines

How will this affect San Fran's bid?

Go Chicago!!



Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO -- The San Francisco 49ers ended negotiations with the city about building a new stadium Wednesday and have turned their focus to the Bay Area suburb of Santa Clara.

Owner John York notified Mayor Gavin Newsom of the team's decision earlier Wednesday, the mayor's spokesman, Peter Ragone, told The Associated Press.

Team spokesman Aaron Salkin declined to comment but the 49ers issued a news release late Wednesday night announcing the decision.

According to the release, the team decided after studying the area around Candlestick Park for the past year that the site needed too many infrastructure and public transit improvements, as well as one of the largest parking garages in the world.

The team said the cost of the infrastructure improvements could have exceeded the cost of the proposed stadium, which was estimated to cost between $600 million and $800 million.

Also, the team said it was unlikely it could achieve its goal of opening the new stadium in time for the 2012 season.

Now the team is seeking to build a new stadium in Santa Clara, near the Great America amusement park and the Santa Clara Convention Center. Santa Clara is located in San Francisco's South Bay area near San Jose.

"We're excited to work with Santa Clara officials to discuss this project," owner John York said in a statement. "Based on our initial analysis, Santa Clara has strong potential to deliver the game day experience our fans deserve."

York said the team would not change its name under any circumstances.

"Nothing will persuade us to change the name of the San Francisco 49ers, one of the most storied brands in the world of sports," he said.

The 49ers headquarters and training facility are currently based in Santa Clara, located about 30 miles south of San Francisco.

"We have been looking to expand our entertainment options in the Great America-Convention Center area for years, and this stadium can be a great addition," Santa Clara Mayor Patricia Mahan said in a statement issued by the team. "The 49ers have been clear that their goal is to put together a project that has no impact on the City's general fund and no increase in taxes, and we are ready to give this project our full attention."

The 49ers and San Francisco officials had been talking over the last few months about building a privately financed stadium at Candlestick Point that was going to be part of the city's bid for the 2016 summer Olympics.

Ragone did not know how the 49ers' decision would impact the Olympic bid. San Francisco, Los Angeles and Chicago are the three cities competing to be the U.S. Olympic Committee's choice to bid on the 2016 games.

The team's current lease at Candlestick runs through the 2008 season and the team holds three five-year options that could extend it through 2023.

The current stadium at Candlestick is one of the most run-down in the league, leading to the team's desire to seek a new stadium with revenue-generating suites and luxury boxes. The plan to build a stadium also included public housing, retail and office space.

The city was not going to contribute any money to the stadium but was willing to possibly help with some of the infrastructure costs.

York assured San Francisco officials that he was only negotiating with the city, but Ragone said the team had talked in recent weeks to Santa Clara officials about the move.

Ragone added that York told the mayor he would consider moving the team somewhere else in California. Los Angeles and Anaheim also are seeking an NFL team.

The mayors of the two cities met last month with new commissioner Roger Goodell to offer their competing plans to lure a team back to southern California.

Los Angeles city leaders want to build a new stadium within the walls of the historic Memorial Coliseum, featuring 200 luxury boxes and 15,000 club seats at a cost of $800 million.

Goodell also met with Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle about his city's plans to sell the NFL 53 acres at the below-market price of $50 million to build a new stadium adjacent to Angel Stadium.

The Los Angeles area hasn't had an NFL team since after the 1994 season when the Raiders returned to Oakland and the Anaheim-based Rams moved to St. Louis.

Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press

[nomarandlee]

This could be just an ultimatum by the 49ers for more concessions from the city in final negotiations. I can't imagine that would want to leave that far from the city but maybe they don't mind and i could be wrong. If true that would put a big wrench in the Olympic plans. Maybe SF would drop the bid or maybe they may go the temporary stadium route like Chicago.

[the urban politician]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2654743&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines

How will this affect San Fran's bid?

Go Chicago!!



Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO -- The San Francisco 49ers ended negotiations with the city about building a new stadium Wednesday and have turned their focus to the Bay Area suburb of Santa Clara.

^ This is the kind of situation that a guy like Daley is perfect for. He wouldn't let the team leave no matter what. That's why there's a flying saucer on top of Soldier Field

[Mr Roboto]

This does not sound good for the San Fran bid. Even if its not totally true, or likely that the team would move to Santa Clara, the unsureness of the stadium situation probably does not look promising in the eyes of the USOC.

It seems like LA is becoming the front runner, simply because they have all the resources already in place. But in my opinion, that would be a bland olympics, and I couldnt see the IOC supporting it again.

It would take a real solid fund raising commitment from Chicago to pull this towards us. Its still possible. But I think people can appreciate the hardworking, underdog status of Chicago, and the fact that Daly and the city have such a strong reputation in getting things done. Now that Daly appears unchallenged in the election for next year (w/ Jackson and Gutierez both dropping out to focus on their newly found power in Congress), it bodes even better for our chances.

[Chicago2020]

Thats Big News, I woke up to this news on ESPN and I was a little confused at first. I mean as a huge football fan, I would hate to see the 9ers leave town.

BUT canceling the plans for the new stadium, brings the entire San Fran bid back to square one, and gives Chicago a huge advantage over San Fran.

[Chicago2020]

More news, this time not so good

U.S. Olympic Committee: American cities not yet ready for IOC consideration
ABC 7 News

November 8, 2006 - For the first time, representatives from the American cities bidding for the 2016 Summer Olympics met face-to-face Wednesday.

US Olympic Committee officials told each city Wednesday night in Los Angeles that they all have a viable proposal to host the games, but not one of them is ready for consideration by the International Olympic Committee.
Chicago is up against Los Angeles and San Francisco.

We'll know by the end of the year if a US- city will be recommended for international consideration.

[nomarandlee]

It the U.S. gets it in 2016 it will have been twenty years Luke.

[chiphile]

I wonder if the Democratic sweep and hopefully a Democrat president in 2008 would raise the U.S. international reputation. Could this all be linked to Iraq? I sometimes forget that Chicago is in America and the world hates us right now.

But if I could dream, I would say..
SF stadium plan fails, Chicago resident Barack Obama elected president in '08, who in turn gets NBC to open a permanent studio in Chicago, then NBC convinces the IOC and Chicago celebrates getting the olympics in '09. The athletes come in 2016 and the world sees what Chicago really is, Fordham Spire or whatever it's called will be finished, and then I ride to work on the circle line. What'd ya think?

[bnk]

/sports/international/cs-061109olympics,1,4508561.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

Chicago, L.A. appear to be frontrunners for Olympics
By Philip Hersh
Tribune olympic sports reporter

November 9, 2006, 1:42 PM CST

COSTA MESA, Calif. -- Chicago likely will have to contend with just one rival--Los Angeles--in its attempt to become host city of the 2016 Summer Olympics.

San Francisco's bid is in disarray after the NFL's 49ers announced late Wednesday they have ended negotiations with the city on a stadium project that would have been used for the Olympics.

"We are looking at our options and trying to decide what they are," San Francisco 2016 communications director Jaime Rupert said Thursday morning at the end of a two-day bid committee seminar with the U.S. Olympic Committee.

Rupert said one of the options was withdrawing.

"I can't rule anything out," she said.

The San Francisco bid committee clearly was blindsided by the 49ers' decision.

"We had been working very carefully on a venue plan, and we were surprised," Rupert said.

Jesse Blout, director of San Francisco's economic and workforce development agency, said it would be fair to characterize the situation as having had the rug pulled out from under the bid. The bid's leaders returned to San Francisco to meet with Mayor Gavin Newsom.

``The news (about the stadium) was surprising, but it doesn't change the fact we need to continue to focus on the key aspects of our bid, including what we learned here this week,'' Chicago 2016 chairman Patrick Ryan said Thursday.

Doug Arnot, Chicago's venue design chief, was not ready to write San Francisco off.

``I know the people working for San Francisco, and I think they are capable of coming up with a viable alternative,'' Arnot said.

Leaders of the group trying to bring the 2016 Summer Olympics to Chicago left the seminar feeling confident their plans for the event need no significant alterations.

"We didn't find anything we have to make dramatic change on," Ryan said after a one-hour private meeting with U.S. Olympic Committee officials.

They also feel that 2016 may represent the only real chance for the Summer Games to return to the United States for years to come.

USOC vice-president Bob Ctvrtlik said Wednesday he thought the notion of geographical rotation of the Olympics is "alive and well" and, "We are hearing from people that it should come to the Americas in 2016."

"This (2016) is the moment in time, and we are certainly looking at it that way," Ryan said.

By 2020, pressure will increase to bring the Olympics to South America or Africa. Paris looks like a front-runner for 2024, the 100th anniversary of its last Olympic Games.

Ryan insisted Chicago would be able to satisfy the USOC demand to show funding is in place for the $300 million Olympic Stadium and the $1 billion Olympic Village.

"We believe that by the end of the (domestic) bid process, we will demonstrate not only that our stadium plan works-and works well-but we can fund it privately and leave a legacy for track and field … and will see there is certainty in terms of the Village," Ryan said.

Chicago's plan calls for developers to fund the Village across Lake Shore Drive from McCormick Place and then resell it as residential and commercial space.

Because the International Olympic Committee has gray areas in its rules about what can be called Games operations, as much as three-fourths of the stadium price may be written off to the Olympic Games organizing committee (OCOG) budget because it is going to be primarily a temporary structure, with only 10,000 of the 95,000 seats remaining after the Games.

"We are certainly going to be conscious of the IOC and the USOC and their definition of the gray area and their definition of the utilization of it," Ryan said in a recent interview with the Tribune. "The OCOG money and non-OCOG money are sizeable amounts, and we would be foolish not to walk the line appropriately within the rules."

The Chicago group's next task is to present a more detailed version of its plans, known as the "domestic bid book," to the USOC by Jan. 22.

"There was nothing coming out of our discussions here that tells us we have to make fundamental changes," Ryan said Thursday. "We to pay attention to some details and clarify some ambiguities."

Asked if Chicago suffered by comparison with San Francisco, a city with a more romantic image, Ryan said he didn't feel that would be an issue in the IOC's eventual choice of a host.

"Yes, we are in the heartland of the country and maybe not so romantic in some people's eyes, but I don't think they (the IOC) are looking for romance."

The USOC will decide by the end of the year whether to present a U.S. candidate. If that happens, as is expected, the USOC will choose the city in early April.

Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco are the three finalists. One could be eliminated before a USOC evaluation commission visits the candidate cities in February.

phersh@tribune.com
Copyright © 2006, The Chicago Tribune

[bnk]

Thursday, November 9, 2006 (Costa Mesa):

Though they spent the day discussing in blunt detail the pitfalls in the arduous bid process, US Olympic Committee officials sounded sure as ever on Wednesday that they will nominate a city to host the 2016 Summer Games.

At times, the opening of the two-day USOC seminar headlined by chairman Peter Ueberroth sounded more like a primer on why not to bid for the Olympics than why to get excited about it.

Still, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco are in the game. They were given every indication that the USOC will commit in December to making a bid. The city would be selected next April.

"We're becoming more and more optimistic that we will be going forward,'' said Bob Ctvrtlik, the USOC's new international vice president.

He, Ueberroth and chief executive Jim Scherr spent much of the day reminding potential bidders that the United States' reputation is hurting - on the geopolitical front in the wake of an unpopular war, and on the Olympic front where the USOC leadership only recently has been stabilized after years of turmoil.

"The international community viewed us as a revolving door, and it was,'' Scherr said.

Difficulties faced

The key to the 2016 bid is for the city to figure out a way to overcome the negatives and get 51 per cent of the approximately 120 votes come selection day in 2009.

Ctvrtlik told the cities what they could expect in the areas of:
Logistics: Get ready to make presentations to the IOC on a moment's notice, usually at an inconvenient time and in every far-flung corner of the globe.


Personalities: For instance, memorize former IOC president Juan Antonio Samaranch's face and show the proper respect. Everyone else does.


Politics: Instead of hanging out in hotel lobbies, focus on making as much one-on-one contact as possible with members of the selection committee. Don't act smug, arrogant or celebrate a supposed victory too soon. Don't let politicians take over your operation as the deadline gets closer. Don't end up on the speed dial of Paquerette Girard Zappeli, leader of the IOC Ethics Commission.
It was the perceived failure of New York to adhere to some of these basics - not to mention money problems that wracked the city's efforts throughout the process - that resulted in its failed bid for the 2012 Games.

"New York received 16 votes,'' Ueberroth said. "That's 16 votes for which NYC2012 spent almost $60 million, along with untold time, energy and other resources.''

To avoid a repeat, the USOC is getting intimately involved in this bid process, which picks up steam internationally late next year.

Madrid, New Delhi, Prague, Rio de Janeiro, Rome and Tokyo are among the cities that have expressed interest in landing the 2016 Games. Many cities are waiting to see if the United States decides to bid.(AP)

[FourOneFive]

well it seems like thirty then. :) was it over when the germans bombed pear harbor?

when did the germans bomb pear harbor? in fact, where is pear harbor? :haha: ;)

[Steely Dan]

well, the SF bid implosion certainly has to now give LA the significant upper hand, being that 4 of the USIOC members are californians and will now fall in line behind the kingdom of socal. this makes for an incredibly difficult uphill battle for chicago.

what chicago really needed was a split of the votes between the two cali cities from the cali members. now that they'll all likely be thrown behind LA, chicago's chances just got dimmer.

[j korzeniowski]

Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco are the three finalists. One could be eliminated before a USOC evaluation commission visits the candidate cities in February.

i love my city, but i hope our chances don't rest on a visit to chicago in february.

[urban_encounter]

well, the SF bid implosion certainly has to now give LA the significant upper hand, being that 4 of the USIOC members are californians and will now fall in line behind the kingdom of socal. this makes for an incredibly difficult uphill battle for chicago.

what chicago really needed was a split of the votes between the two cali cities from the cali members. now that they'll all likely be thrown behind LA, chicago's chances just got dimmer.



I disagree about L.A. having the upper hand. I really think this was only a two horse race between SF and Chicago to begin with (with SF being the odds on favorite). If the the 49ers fiasco dooms the SF bid (as it appears it may) then i personally feel that Chicago will easily prevail.

We'll know soon enough...

[dboggie]

chiphile said:

"But if I could dream, I would say..
SF stadium plan fails, Chicago resident Barack Obama elected president in '08, who in turn gets NBC to open a permanent studio in Chicago, then NBC convinces the IOC and Chicago celebrates getting the olympics in '09. The athletes come in 2016 and the world sees what Chicago really is, Fordham Spire or whatever it's called will be finished, and then I ride to work on the circle line. What'd ya think?"


yeah right, the circle line will be ready by then..

[Mr Roboto]

well, the SF bid implosion certainly has to now give LA the significant upper hand, being that 4 of the USIOC members are californians and will now fall in line behind the kingdom of socal. this makes for an incredibly difficult uphill battle for chicago.

what chicago really needed was a split of the votes between the two cali cities from the cali members. now that they'll all likely be thrown behind LA, chicago's chances just got dimmer.


I agree that LA is the front runner now for a number of reasons. The question though is, do we think the USOC would be stupid enough to present LA again (for the third friggin time - and sorry, LA is not London) to the IOC as the city of the United States? If so, I think there is no chance in hell of the US landing the games, and honestly, I dont think we would deserve them if that were the case.

[chiphile]

chiphile said:

"But if I could dream, I would say..
SF stadium plan fails, Chicago resident Barack Obama elected president in '08, who in turn gets NBC to open a permanent studio in Chicago, then NBC convinces the IOC and Chicago celebrates getting the olympics in '09. The athletes come in 2016 and the world sees what Chicago really is, Fordham Spire or whatever it's called will be finished, and then I ride to work on the circle line. What'd ya think?"


yeah right, the circle line will be ready by then..


And... where exactly did I say it wouldn't be ready? Two off-topic posts in a row, but stupidity must be pointed out occasionally.

[Steely Dan]

I agree that LA is the front runner now for a number of reasons. The question though is, do we think the USOC would be stupid enough to present LA again (for the third friggin time - and sorry, LA is not London) to the IOC as the city of the United States? If so, I think there is no chance in hell of the US landing the games, and honestly, I dont think we would deserve them if that were the case.


you're right. this is why the san fran situation is so worrisome. i would have absolutely no problem if chicago loses to san fran in this process. certainly the hometown booster in me would be disappointed, but san fran is very much an incredibly deserving city to host the olympics. los angeles is also a great city that could pull off the games, but they've already hosted the olympics two fucking times! for god sakes, i really hope the USIOC gives the chance to equally deserving cities that have never had the honor, such as san fran or chicago. i'll be mighty pissed if LA does win, and unfortunately, the news out of san fran this morning makes that scenario seem more and more likely.

[bnk]

you're right. this is why the san fran situation is so worrisome. i would have absolutely no problem if chicago loses to san fran in this process. certainly the hometown booster in me would be disappointed, but san fran is very much an incredibly deserving city to host the olympics. los angeles is also a great city that could pull off the games, but they've already hosted the olympics two fucking times! for god sakes, i really hope the USIOC gives the chance to equally deserving cities that have never had the honor, such as san fran or chicago. i'll be mighty pissed if LA does win, and unfortunately, the news out of san fran this morning makes that scenario seem more and more likely.


I am willing to give the USIOC more credit and will eventually use their brains over their hearts when the US bid is submitted. They will look at the polling and see the rest of the world would not want LA again, and therefore it would be a losing bit. If we trust USIOC comments that they intend to submit only if the USA has a very good chance of winning the olympics then Chicago is the only real choice. That is if San Fran is truly out of it.

[urban_encounter]

I agree that LA is the front runner now for a number of reasons. The question though is, do we think the USOC would be stupid enough to present LA again (for the third friggin time - and sorry, LA is not London) to the IOC as the city of the United States? If so, I think there is no chance in hell of the US landing the games, and honestly, I dont think we would deserve them if that were the case.

you're right. this is why the san fran situation is so worrisome. i would have absolutely no problem if chicago loses to san fran in this process. certainly the hometown booster in me would be disappointed, but san fran is very much an incredibly deserving city to host the olympics. los angeles is also a great city that could pull off the games, but they've already hosted the olympics two fucking times! for god sakes, i really hope the USIOC gives the chance to equally deserving cities that have never had the honor, such as san fran or chicago. i'll be mighty pissed if LA does win, and unfortunately, the news out of san fran this morning makes that scenario seem more and more likely.



San Francisco or Chicago would put on a first class Olympiad, with both cities offering a very cosomopoltian experience with incredibly stunning citysapes and what would be new venues built for the games..


I personally believe that L.A. was only chosen as a contender as a backup, in the event that either Chicago or San Francisco became incapable of bidding for the games. I don't seriously believe that the USOC or IOC want the games back in L.A. this soon.

[urban_encounter]

A great deal has to do with how well each city's presentation is, plus how well they entertain the olympic officials, also providing good quality hookers is a bonus too. just ask Salt Lake city.


:haha:

[dboggie]

L.A. is the safe alternative, most of the venues are already in place, the city knows what to expect, etc... I would like to believe that the reason it was kept around was as a backup so that in case both Chicago's and San Fran's proposals fell apart, the US would still have a city ready to bid. However, the number of voters who are from CA is worrisome as they might get caught up in the 'my city might host the Olympics' hype.

And I agree, whose idea was it to visit Chicago in February? How can you showcase the city when you are fighting frostbite?

[DePaul Bunyan]

I don't see how anyone can say that LA is the clear favorite. Sure the USOC members might have an LA bias, but they probably have a U.S. bias too. It will all come down to which city has the best shot at the IOC. In that case, I think Chicago has a slight advantage (visiting Chicago in February could be a problem though) because LA has already had the Olympics twice. It's been done, and if Chicago can put together a decent-looking stadium and Olympic Village (maybe get Calatrava to design a tower for it?), they already have the mass transit in place. LA isn't the lock that some people seem to think it is, and it's definitely a possibility that they were the third-stringer just in case something happens with the other two bids (like losing a stadium).

[Catmendue2]

There isn't going to be a new Stadium in the 49ers future in San Francisco. The 49ers as reported by FOX NEWS are looking into moving out of San Fran and into a new Stadium in Santa Clara.:banana:

[Mr Roboto]

^ I dont know if thats something to be that happy about. The 9ers belong in San Francisco. They have a storied franchise, and mean a lot to that city. I wish they would stay there.

As far as the Olympics, this is a bitter pill to swallow too. San Francisco deserved a much better oppurtunity for the Olympics, and I would have liked all three bids (or at least SF and Chi) to go head to head and see who has the best package. To have the rug pulled out from under their committee and made to look like idiots was an asenine stunt by the 49er owners. I want Chicago to win of course, but San Francisco is just as worthy of having the Olympics, and the way they went out was pretty sad. An ending they dont deserve.

[rgolch]

Why has everyone assumed that the SF bid is done? They probably will come up with an adequate solution.

[Catmendue2]

San Francisco or Chicago would put on a first class Olympiad, with both cities offering a very cosomopoltian experience with incredibly stunning citysapes and what would be new venues built for the games..


I personally believe that L.A. was only chosen as a contender as a backup, in the event that either Chicago or San Francisco became incapable of bidding for the games. I don't seriously believe that the USOC or IOC want the games back in L.A. this soon.



I totally agree.

[bnk]

* moderator edit *

if you have a question about a post deletion, shoot me a PM. don't make a new post about it in the thread in question.

- steely

[rgolch]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-0611100159nov10,1,2984472.story?coll=chi-news-hed

Olympic rival's woes may aid Chicago bid
But San Francisco's likely exit could prove mixed blessing

By Philip Hersh
Tribune Olympics reporter
Published November 10, 2006

COSTA MESA, Calif. -- San Francisco's Olympic hopes have taken a sudden turn for the worse with uncertainty over a new stadium jeopardizing its bid plans. Though that likely will leave only Chicago and Los Angeles in contention to be the U.S. bid city for the 2016 Summer Olympics, it's not necessarily good news for Chicago.

If San Francisco withdraws, Chicago no longer would have to compete against the romantic image that makes the West Coast city consistently one of the nation's top two tourist destinations--a place where International Olympic Committee voters would love to spend an Olympic month.

E-mail this story
Printable format
Search archives
RSS




But Chicago's stadium plans are still just that--plans. And the stadium issue clouding San Francisco's future in the race means the U.S. Olympic Committee might be more inclined to choose the other finalist, Los Angeles, because it has an Olympic Stadium in place.

San Francisco's bid fell into disarray after the NFL's 49ers unexpectedly announced late Wednesday they have ended negotiations with the city on a downtown stadium project that would have been completed by 2012 and used for the Olympics. The 49ers have switched their focus to building a stadium near their training site 45 miles south in Santa Clara.

"This is not helpful, but I'm not willing to give up yet," San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said Thursday.

The 49ers' decision clearly blindsided the San Francisco bid committee.

"We are looking at our options and trying to decide what they are," San Francisco 2016 communications director Jamie Rupert said Thursday morning, at the end of a two-day USOC bid committee seminar. Rupert said one option was withdrawing.

USOC Vice President Bob Ctvrtlik, who is overseeing the bid city process, said the USOC would leave it up to San Francisco to decide what second options it might have.

"Obviously, it is a big setback for them," Ctvrtlik said. "We have always said there are some things that would make a bid a non-starter, and not having a firm guarantee of an Olympic Stadium is non-starter No. 1."

The San Francisco situation could enhance Los Angeles' chances because the USOC does not want a repeat of what happened with the New York 2012 bid, when the city was forced to change its stadium plans at the 11th hour.



Chicago group optimistic

Los Angeles has the Coliseum, used for ceremonies and track and field in 1932 and 1984. It needs only to have a track reinstalled to be viable again.

"Having a venue constructed obviously will help when we are grading as far as the feasibility of a stadium being built," Ctvrtlik said. "But we have until March to see what Chicago will come back with."

Leaders of the group trying to bring the 2016 Summer Olympics to Chicago left the seminar feeling confident that their plans for the event need no significant alterations.

"The news [about the San Francisco stadium] was surprising, but it doesn't change the fact we need to continue to focus on the key aspects of our bid," Chicago 2016 Chairman Patrick Ryan said Thursday, after a one-hour private meeting with USOC officials. "We didn't find anything we have to make dramatic change on."

The USOC will decide by the end of the year whether to present a U.S. candidate. If that happens, as expected, the USOC will choose the city in early April.

Other cities that could make bids include Toyko, Madrid, Rio de Janeiro and Moscow.

Ryan insisted Chicago would be able to satisfy the USOC demand to show by March 31 that funding is in place for the planned $300 million Olympic Stadium and the $1 billion Olympic Village.

"We believe that by the end of the [domestic] bid process, we will demonstrate not only that our stadium plan works and works well but we can fund it privately and leave a legacy for track and field . . . and will show there is certainty in terms of the Village," he said.

Chicago's plan calls for developers to fund the Village across Lake Shore Drive from McCormick Place and then resell it as residential and commercial space.

The planned stadium in Washington Park will be a temporary structure primarily with only 10,000 of the 95,000 seats remaining after the Games. Much of the cost could be financed with revenues directly generated by the Olympic Games.

Los Angeles 2016 Chairman Barry Sanders would not comment on San Francisco's stadium problems, but Sanders seized on the moment to underscore what he saw as the significance of the Coliseum.



L.A. touts its venue

"In terms of a strong technical bid, I don't see how any city in the world can beat what we can offer," Sanders said. "We have almost all the venues in place.

"Because you have existing venues, there are ramifications that go beyond finance and having it done on time. We can put international athletes on a U.S. stage three years before the Games."

Chicago bid leaders are aware that their city has had virtually no involvement with events in Olympic sports for almost a half-century. The Tribune has learned Chicago is about to create a sports council to bid on such events.

"We have plans to bring events and promote Olympic sport in Chicago," Ryan acknowledged.

He said those plans will go forward even if Chicago is not selected as the 2016 bid city.

----------

phersh@tribune.com

Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune

[the urban politician]

^ That advantage of California USOC members splitting their votes is gone now. So will all 4 now vote for LA?

I don't know if this is good news at all. While 1984 is not too long ago NOW, when compared to 2016 it may just make the cut for being far enough away in time. I don't really know how those Olympic officials count these things, but one would guess that somebody should be saying this:

"duh, of course LA has the infrastructure in place to host the Olympics--it already HAS hosted them. But at one point it didn't, and you gave them a chance. Now do the same for Chicago--or else we'll just have our games in the same cities over and over again"

It's a sound argument and if LA ends up getting picked, I'll still stand by the above statement.

[chiphile]

^Again I don't see that as an advantage for LA because the IOC most likely would not want a three time repeat. It's the USOC's job to submit a city that has the most likely chance of winning internationally, and our only competition in that, in my opinion, was SF. With SF hopefully out of the way, thanks to the 49ers, I think we're good. We are forgetting that it's not up to the USOC to decide who gets the olympics, but who has the best chance at winning.
And at the end of the day, we've got Daley, and I'm sure he was made aware of 4 Californians on the USOC a long time ago. Certainly this doesn't mean we are a shoe-in, but I think we are at 50/50 with L.A. now, and not the under dog, and hopefully the momentum will shift towards us in the next few months.

[rgolch]

^ I agree. As a matter of fact, I think it would be up to the USOC to make an arguement the Chicago is incapable of hosting the games (provided SF is really out of the game, which I'm not totally sure of).

The fact LA has hosted the games 2 times prior definetly matters. It doesn't mean they won't get the olympics, but there will certainly be some criticism if a new city is not given a chance.

If SF truely becomes a non-contender, then I think this is the best chance (possibly in our lifetime) for a Chicago olympics.

[urban_encounter]

I think we are at 50/50 with L.A. now, and not the under dog, and hopefully the momentum will shift towards us in the next few months.


Being from California, and knowing first hand how much more effectively and efficiently Chicago is able to get things done (as well as just being a more attractive and cosomopoltian city than L.A.) I just don't think there's any doubt Chicago will be the pick. I really don't see any contest here. That's not meant as a slam on L.A., but does the USOC and the IOC really want a Hollywood rerun?? I doubt it.

The games were San Francisco's to lose. Now there's Chicago's to host...

[chiphile]

I absolutely love this article from NewCitySkyline.. It likens Chicago's olympic aspirations as “the next Burnham plan.”
Good read, it's an interview with Sam Assefa:
http://www.newcityskyline.com/SamAssefa.html

[Chicago2020]

* moderator edit *

this article was already posted in this thread earlier today.

- steely

[vegetagd]

Being from California, and knowing first hand how much more effectively and efficiently Chicago is able to get things done (as well as just being a more attractive and cosomopoltian city than L.A.) I just don't think there's any doubt Chicago will be the pick. I really don't see any contest here. That's not meant as a slam on L.A., but does the USOC and the IOC really want a Hollywood rerun?? I doubt it.

The games were San Francisco's to lose. Now there's Chicago's to host...

I'm with you on this...even if in theory, LA has things in place, you submit a bid for the Olympics with the intention to win. I think the international committee will look favorably on Chicago the unnoticed 3rd child of US cities.

[the urban politician]

Daley basically can go to the Bahamas through these next elections and keep his job. I wonder how this will influence the USOC--since there was talk earlier that Daley's uncertain future as mayor could be a hindrance to Chicago.

I'm honestly not poking fun at any city--but the President celebrated his
60th birthday with this guy. I don't know much about LA's mayor's clout, but Daley certainly has the means to pull this off, if he plays his cards right.

[sapphireblueeyes]

Yes, Daley's been fortified with 12 vitamins and minerals and we drink him up more than we drink Milk. He's our Iron, Calcium, and Fiber, available in Children's Chewables too!! Each vitamin is a skyscraper in a different color and flavor and then there's the Aldermen, so if you don't like yours, you can chew him up!! The favorite vitamin is the Daley one, he's strawberry-kiwi. The Sears Tower is Grape, Hancock is Cherry, Donnelly is watermelon, etc., etc. All part of a healthy diet. Get yours today!!

Daley basically can go to the Bahamas through these next elections and keep his job. I wonder how this will influence the USOC--since there was talk earlier that Daley's uncertain future as mayor could be a hindrance to Chicago.

I'm honestly not poking fun at any city--but the President celebrated his
60th birthday with this guy. I don't know much about LA's mayor's clout, but Daley certainly has the means to pull this off, if he plays his cards right.

[the urban politician]

^ :haha:

[TransitEngr]

A great deal has to do with how well each city's presentation is, plus how well they entertain the olympic officials, also providing good quality hookers is a bonus too. just ask Salt Lake city.

Sadly I don't think this is a joke.

I suppose a handsome portion of winning the bid is still dependant upon bribes... hookers possibly being a part of that.

[Rail Claimore]

Sadly I don't think this is a joke.

I suppose a handsome portion of winning the bid is still dependant upon bribes... hookers possibly being a part of that.

Like Chicago isn't good at doing that. ;)

[FourOneFive]

San Francisco has dropped out of the bidding process for the 2016 Olympics. It's now up to Chicago and LA to bring the Olympics back to the United States.

[trvlr70]

Wow! I'm in complete shock. I thought it was going to be a bitter battle with San Francisco to the end. The 49ers just screwed over the city of San Francisco and all the residents of the whole bay area who would have both economically and culturally benefitted from the Games.

[Steely Dan]

San Francisco has dropped out of the bidding process for the 2016 Olympics. It's now up to Chicago and LA to bring the Olympics back to the United States.

is this official? can we have a link to a news source?

[trvlr70]

is this official? can we have a link to a news source?
It is "breaking news" on the homepage for the SF Gate(Chronicle)/

[J Church]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/13/BAGT7MBTEM13.DTL

(11-13) 11:45 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- San Francisco will abandon its bid to bring the 2016 Olympics to San Francisco, the group leading the effort announced today.

Scott Givens, managing director of the bid, said the announcement last week that the San Francisco 49ers would move their plans for a new stadium to Santa Clara from San Francisco damaged the city's reputation with the U.S. Olympics Committee irreparably. He said that the bid committee was sitting at dinner with officials from the USOC when they all were told of the surprise decision.

"Without giving us any warning, any capacity to work through it ... we damaged our reputation, the image of San Francisco in this bid process, we put the city in what we believe is an unrecoverable position," he said. "The damage has been done, and the damage can't be pulled back."

San Francisco had been competing with Los Angeles and Chicago to become the U.S. Olympic Committee's choice to host the 2016 Games, and a major component of any bid is the certainty of an Olympic stadium. The 49ers and San Francisco 2016, the group leading the city's bid, announced a partnership two months ago under which the proposed new Candlestick Point stadium would have been expanded temporarily to 80,000 seats and converted to an Olympic venue for the opening and closing ceremonies, track-and-field events and soccer finals.

Having the Games' showpiece venue in San Francisco proper was considered key to the local bid. The Bay Area's bid for the 2012 Games foundered in part on U.S. Olympic officials' unhappiness that the opening and closing ceremonies would have taken place at Stanford Stadium.

The 49ers shocked fans and city officials in both San Francisco and Santa Clara when it announced last week that it would abandon plans to build a stadium and retail housing complex at Candlestick Point and instead focus on a project in Santa Clara.

When U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein and House Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi intervened late last week on behalf of San Francisco, the team switched course and said it would pursue discussions simultaneously with the two cities.

But on Sunday, a 49ers spokeswoman told The Chronicle that the team still believes that the "challenges" at Candlestick Point "were insurmountable."

The 49ers sent out a statement today reiterating that they had told the city of San Francisco and the Olympics bid committee that they should "not base its entire bid on a development concept that was still in the analysis stage and may not prove viable.

"To mitigate these concerns, the team also worked with the city and its Olympic venue consultants to develop alternatives to safeguard the city's bid in the event that the team's plans at Candlestick Point did not move forward," the statement said, adding that the 49ers have "publicly offered to continue to work with the city to explore holding Olympic events at its proposed new stadium in Santa Clara."

The statement also included a copy of a letter sent to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom in September showing the design that would have allowed the track-and-field events to be held at the proposed stadium. The letter includes a caveat in which York says, "I believe it is important to remind you and the bid committee that there is still a significant hurdle to overcome."

On Sunday, Lennar Corp., the developer that hoped to partner with the 49ers on the Candlestick Point stadium complex, called off a media briefing after the team demanded it be canceled. Lennar had intended to combat suggestions, made by 49ers co-owner John York last week, that Lennar's plan wasn't feasible or fan-friendly.

The team's largest objections to the San Francisco site, they said, was the high cost of bringing transit and parking infrastructure to the point. York also cited the loss of traditional parking lots, saying tailgating would not be an option for fans if the stadium was kept in San Francisco.

[J Church]

P.S. Supporters of the Chicago olympic bid can send thank-you notes to:

John and Denise DeBartolo York
7620 Market Street
Youngstown, OH 44512

[SunMonTueWedThuFriSa]

LA has a stadium but it too needs to cough of money for renovations. Failing to bring an NFL team has hampered those efforts. This is gonna be interesting race though I still believe Chicago is the frontrunner.

[spyguy]

And then there were two...

[Kngkyle©]

What ive noticed most throughout this thread, is not so much foreigners saying Chicago doesn't have a chance, but its own citizens! You won't win anything if you don't believe you can win. Good thing Daley and the others working on the Chicago bid think they can win it. :tup:

[Steely Dan]

P.S. Supporters of the Chicago olympic bid can send thank-you notes to:

John and Denise DeBartolo York
7620 Market Street
Youngstown, OH 44512

as much as i want chicago to eventually win this thing, there is no way in hell that i would thank the york's for their dirty pool. what they did, and especially the way they did it, is low down and rotten. i want a city to win this competition fair and square, not beause of someone's underhanded tricks.

as it is, SF is a phenomenal city and wholely worthy of hosting an olympic games..... perhaps somewhere further on down the road.

[J Church]

I'll say in defense of the Yorks that they're not malevolent, just clueless--see recent win-loss record, San Francisco 49ers.

Anyway, don't want to hijack the Chicago thread. Good luck guys.

[chiphile]

^^ if the Stadium issue sunk SF's bid, I think it's the biggest problem Chicago has too. I just don't see Chicago being able to identify and secure $600 million for the Stadium by this spring to make their bid legit.


LA has the stadium but since they've held it in recent history, i'm thinking the US ultimately won't submit a bid.


Almost all of the recent cities chosen for olympics were chosen without existing stadiums, but solid stadium plans. Chicago's chances aren't bad just because there is a plan and not a 50 year old structure in place like L.A. I see no merit in continually lauding L.A. for having old stuff in place.

As far as international competitors go, Tokyo, Madrid, and Rio, I'm not sure of their stadium status but I'm certain they have some serious construction to do as well. Just because you have to build something doesn't mean you have a weak bid. We all know Daley can get things done.

I see no point in being skeptical right now. I feel bad for SF, but this is great news for Chicago. As far as I'm concerned, L.A. is a no-threat, Chicago's olympic team needs to gear up and be prepared to take on the IOC.

2016 here we come.

It's finally happening, awesome. :cheers:

[chiphile]

What ive noticed most throughout this thread, is not so much foreigners saying Chicago doesn't have a chance, but its own citizens! You won't win anything if you don't believe you can win. Good thing Daley and the others working on the Chicago bid think they can win it. :tup:

Thank you! Seriously guys, this isn't another 2,000 foot skyscraper proposal pipe-dream, we are in the lead with this one!

[Chicago2020]

Guess who's going to Barcelona!! No, not me :haha: I wish, but Mayor Daley and the rest of the Chicago Olympic Crew is.

[nomarandlee]

^^ if the Stadium issue sunk SF's bid, I think it's the biggest problem Chicago has too. I just don't see Chicago being able to identify and secure $600 million for the Stadium by this spring to make their bid legit.


LA has the stadium but since they've held it in recent history, i'm thinking the US ultimately won't submit a bid.

The tear down proposal by the city has estimates between 200-300 million if I recall correctly. Still a lot for a stadium that will be deconstructed to a large extant after the games but cheap in comparison to a whole new stadium. London is basically deconstructing 75% of their Olympic stadium so it is not unheard of. The city basically has to sell the plan to the IOC that they will like what will become of the stadium after the games. The IOC got pissed at Atlanta though for daring to make good use of their stadium afer their games and turning it into a baseball stadium instead of some white elephant so they seem to be arrogent and fickle in regards to Olmypic stadiums.

[Chicago2020]

Plus, Chicago's proposed stadium will be for the people of Chicago, not a pro team, after the games, even its going to be a 10,000 seat theater area.

Bottom line is, I believe and many others including DA Mayor, believe that the stadium will be bring jobs and revenue to the south side

[chiphile]

As much as I love Daley and the team, I would like to point out that they officially fucked up when it comes to Soldier Field. We would have been nominated long ago with a new stadium in place. And if it came with a dome, Chicago could host final fours and all sorts of things. That was a very short-sighted decision to land that UFO in Soldier Field.
Oh well, let's hope this works out either way..

[urban_encounter]

Olympic rival's exit puts focus on funding
By Philip Hersh, Tribune Olympics reporter. Tribune staff writer Gary Washburn contributed to this story
Published November 14, 2006


The stadium issue that forced San Francisco to withdraw Monday as a potential bid city for the 2016 Olympics increases pressure on Chicago to provide an ironclad guarantee it can finance its Olympic stadium.

San Francisco left the field to Chicago and Los Angeles because it knew the U.S. Olympic Committee would no longer consider a bid with the uncertainty over an Olympic stadium that had foundered New York's 2012 candidacy at the 11th hour.

USOC officials have called lack of a firm guarantee for an Olympic stadium "non-starter No. 1" for any bidder. Chicago 2016 Chairman Pat Ryan said last week that the city will demonstrate its ability to privately fund a $320 million Olympic stadium in Washington Park.

"The announcement today does not change our plans," the Chicago 2016 bid committee said Monday in a statement. "Our focus is on presenting a plan to the USOC that demonstrates our ability to win the international votes necessary to bring the Games back to the United States."

San Francisco bid officials knew they were in a hopeless position after the NFL's 49ers blindsided them by saying Wednesday they no longer wanted to build the downtown facility that would have served as an Olympic stadium.

"We created a huge perceptual gap that addresses one of biggest concerns the USOC has post-2012," San Francisco 2016 managing director Scott Givens said at a Monday press conference. "[It] put our city in what we believe is an unrecoverable position."

San Francisco's withdrawal, expected since Thursday, may have changed the landscape more for Los Angeles than Chicago.

"Not having two California cities makes it clear we are a regional bid as well as a city bid, just as Chicago is a Midwest bid," LA 2016 Chairman Barry Sanders said Monday via telephone.

The practical effects include allowing for statewide governmental support of the Los Angeles bid. Sanders said Los Angeles would like to involve the San Francisco area by having a venue for soccer preliminaries in Palo Alto or San Jose.

"Having San Francisco withdraw doesn't change the fact we have to rely on what and who we are," Sanders said.

The USOC will decide by the end of the year whether to make a 2016 bid, although going forward seems a foregone conclusion. It will choose a candidate by mid-April. The International Olympic Committee selects the 2016 host in October 2009.

Even before the USOC pared the field from five cities to three in July, top officials of the Los Angeles bid committee felt Chicago would be their most formidable rival.

That was borne out by the USOC's international polling of IOC members and international sports leaders late last spring. By a small margin, those polled said Chicago had the best chance of the five candidates to win the IOC vote.

Los Angeles was host to the 1932 and 1984 Summer Games. Chicago was awarded the 1904 Olympics but gave them up to St. Louis, which threatened to hold competing Summer Games as part of its World's Fair.

Asked Monday why Chicago would be a better choice than Los Angeles, Mayor Richard Daley was ready with a reply.

"You talk about transportation," he said. "You've two great airports. ... more corporate headquarters in Chicago and the metropolitan area and the Midwest than L.A."

Based on the most recent iterations of their Olympic plans, which could change significantly before the formal bid book goes to the USOC by Jan. 22, here are some comparisons between Chicago and Los Angeles:

Sports venues: Los Angeles has to build from scratch just one relatively inexpensive venue structure, for shooting.

Chicago has to build from scratch the Olympic stadium, aquatics venue, rowing and canoe-kayak course and shooting venue. The first two are big-ticket: some $320 million for the stadium and between $80 and $100 million for the aquatics center.

Finances: The USOC is demanding guarantees by March 31 about financing the stadium and Olympic Village.

Chicago estimates it will cost about $800 million to build new facilities and adapt existing facilities to Olympic specifications. That includes the stadium, which would have 10,000 permanent seats and 95,000 seats for the Olympics. Chicago also has to find developers for the $1 billion Olympic Village.

Los Angeles, which would use existing housing at the University of Southern California or UCLA as its village, estimates its construction costs at $150 million, but that could rise substantially to bring the 83-year-old Los Angeles Coliseum up to contemporary standards.

"Yes, they have a stadium," said USOC Vice President Bob Ctvrtlik, who is overseeing the bid process, "but what would make that stadium more appealing involves significant renovation. Yes, having a stadium completed would seem to be an advantage, but we don't have significant guarantees from either side yet."

Venue geography: The Chicago bid, emphasizing compactness, puts the Olympic Village and all but four sports (not counting soccer preliminaries) within seven miles of the city center, with outlying venues in Rosemont (basketball prelims); Joliet (shooting); and Palos Hills (equestrian, mountain bike).

The Los Angeles bid has three main poles: downtown, for the ceremonies, track and field, gymnastics and, perhaps, two other sports and the Village; Long Beach, 25 miles from downtown, for as many as a dozen sports, including swimming, sailing, rowing and canoe-kayak; and Anaheim, 26 miles from downtown, for basketball, table tennis and wrestling.

[bnk]

As much as I love Daley and the team, I would like to point out that they officially fucked up when it comes to Soldier Field. We would have been nominated long ago with a new stadium in place. And if it came with a dome, Chicago could host final fours and all sorts of things. That was a very short-sighted decision to land that UFO in Soldier Field.
Oh well, let's hope this works out either way..

So true. Let us hope they never make a mistake as colossal as that again. :(


Perhaps they will use the mistakes of the past and learn from them.

[Steely Dan]

the chicago vs. LA bullshit will stop NOW!

[DaleAvella]

Plus, Chicago's proposed stadium will be for the people of Chicago, not a pro team, after the games, even its going to be a 10,000 seat theater area.

I think the Chicago committee is impressively on the right track on this, and it will greatly strengthen the bid to the USOC and IOC.

Currently Chicago's best track and field facility is in Naperville. Probably because there is not great track stadium in Chicago, most people don't realize the many uses a 10,000 seat track stadium can have--high school championships, NCAA championships...a world class track meet.

The four world class track meets in the U.S. are currently in NYC, LA, Eugene OR (Pre Classic), and Philadelphia (Penn relays). With the stadium, Chicago will likely be the fifth.

The stadium can be used for other sports as well. In Oslo, Norway, the track stadium holds outdoor speed skating competitions in winter. In Helsinki, the 1952 Olympic stadium is open to the public during the day, for people to run on the track.

Chicago has done its homework and knows that the Olympic Committe are also fans of the Olympics sports!

[UrbanSophist]

:previous: It would truly be a great addition to the city. Maybe local, or state, universities and high schools would want to hold their track meets there?

[Chicago2020]

I hope SOM designs the Stadium

[Kngkyle©]

Not a whole lot of new info, but just a nice recap.

Chicago competes to host 2016 Summer Olympics
By: Riley Roberts
Issue date: 11/17/06 Section: News

During the summer of 2016, all eyes will be on Chicago. Across the globe, twenty four hours a day, the city's bold skyline will fill television screens, Web pages and newspapers as millions watch the finest athletes in the world compete for Olympic gold in America's Midwestern metropolis.

Or at least that's the vision that some Chicagoans have for the 2016 Olympic Games, whose host will be officially named in 2009. Chicago is one of only two cities in America still eligible for consideration, and many locals are taking the bid very seriously.

"The history of Chicago is one of great plans and even greater accomplishments," boasts Mayor Richard Daley on the Web site of the Chicago 2016 Bid. "We believe hosting the games will solidify Chicago's position as one of the great cities of the world, and, in the process, strengthen the Olympic movement."

Daley has championed the effort to bring the Games to Chicago, laying out bold plans for new sports venues and touting the city's existing infrastructure as ideal for any Olympic contest. On July 26, the mayor's initiatives began to pay off when Chicago was chosen as one of only three U.S. cities still under consideration.

On Monday, San Francisco abandoned its bid, leaving only Los Angeles to compete with Chicago for the favor of the U.S. Olympic Committee, which will make its decision in 2007. Once the American contender is announced, it will be up to the International Olympic Committee to choose between all candidate cities worldwide.

"We believe the time is right for the games to return to the United States, and we think Chicago is the right place to have that happen," said Patrick Sandusky, spokesperson for the Chicago 2016 Bid Committee. "We're offering a centrally-located, compact games that is centered around the athletes, more than eighty percent of whom would be able to be located within about fifteen minutes of their competition venues."

The city's plans are centered around the use of dozens of existing athletic arenas as well as the construction of a temporary 95,000-seat Olympic stadium in Washington Park, where the opening and closing ceremonies would be held. This stadium would be partially dismantled after the games in order to reduce capacity to 10,000, making it appropriate for local sporting events.

According to the Bid Committee, city officials including local aldermen are very supportive of the plan, and opinion polls show that many residents look favorably on the prospect of hosting the Olympics.

"People have been very supportive from the beginning, on the street and in opinion polls," Sandusky said. "Upwards of 80 percent of Chicagoans want to host the Games. There's a huge buzz in the city."

Although U.S. Olympic Committee officials were unable to comment on the ongoing evaluation and assessment process, Vice President Bob Ctvrtlik released a statement earlier this week regarding the race between the two remaining contenders.

"Chicago and Los Angeles are dynamic cities, each with its own distinct vision for hosting the athletes of the world," he said. "Should we proceed with a U.S. bid for the 2016 Games, choosing between these two high-quality candidates will not be easy."

Supporters of Chicago's efforts remain confident that, in spite of the close competition between the cities, their hometown will eventually come out on top.

"We think Chicago has great chances, obviously, or we wouldn't be in this thing," Sandusky said. "We've really got a compelling vision."


http://media.www.dailyillini.com/media/storage/paper736/news/2006/11/17/News/Chicago.Competes.To.Host.2016.Summer.Olympics-2466561.shtml?sourcedomain=www.dailyillini.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com

[the urban politician]

the chicago vs. LA bullshit will stop NOW!

^ Thanks for deleting those posts, Steely. I'm getting fed up with it also(I admittedly being a former partaker myself)

[Chi_Coruscant]

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=22926

Olympic feat: raising enough money


By Eddie Baeb
Nov. 18, 2006

Mayor Richard M. Daley's quest to host the 2016 Olympics hinges on a breakneck fundraising sprint by Patrick G. Ryan.

Mr. Ryan, founder and executive chairman of Aon Corp., must prove by March that he can raise hundreds of millions of dollars from private sources to help finance an estimated $800 million in stadium and facilities construction, if Chicago is to beat out a competing bid from Los Angeles. (San Francisco dropped out of the race last week.) Mr. Ryan also has to line up commitments from developers to construct a $1-billion Olympic Village complex south of McCormick Place.

Civic leaders have supported large fundraising efforts in recent years, including $205 million over six years for Millennium Park, but none on such a tight deadline.

Mr. Ryan has enlisted fundraising heavyweights like McDonald's Corp. Chairman Andrew McKenna Sr. to help with the effort. Perhaps as important, prospective donors will know that the request comes not just from Mr. Ryan, but also from the mayor.

"It's clearly unprecedented, but not outside the reach of the civic and corporate leadership of this community," says Edith Falk, president of Chicago-based fundraising consultant Campbell & Co. "It's going to require these companies to make decisions about sums of money that will be larger than anything they've ever done for any other project in town."

Deloitte & Touche LLP regional chief Deborah DeHaas and former CEO of Zenith Electronics Corp. Jerry Pearlman are helping Mr. Ryan. Their pitch relies on civic pride, the once-in-a-lifetime allure of the Olympics and Chicago's "Make no little plans" heritage — dating to Daniel Burnham's famous 1910 line — to compete for donations amid a crowded fundraising environment.

Mr. Ryan is confident he will be able to provide the funding guarantees and will have raised the required $20 million to satisfy the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC) by the end of March. If it decides to endorse a U.S. city, the USOC in April will choose between Chicago and Los Angeles based on proposals cities submit in January.

"By March 30, we'll be able to demonstrate to the USOC the certainty of the village and the same for the stadium," says Mr. Ryan, who didn't provide details. "It's going to take a demonstration that the resources and the plans are in place. The money isn't going to be in the bank, but the certainty of completion will be there."

The announcement that San Francisco was withdrawing because its stadium deal fell apart left Chicago and Los Angeles as the only cities vying to be the U.S. candidate for the Summer Games. The news also heightened the importance of having a suitable stadium — one advantage Los Angeles holds over Chicago, thanks to the L.A. Coliseum, which hosted the 1932 and 1984 Olympics.

'WARM RESPONSE'

Mr. Ryan's committee is already more than halfway toward its first fundraising target, $25 million to sustain the bid effort until the International Olympic Committee makes its selection in 2009, says Mr. McKenna.

"If we don't have the money, we can forget everything else," he says. "We're getting a very, very warm response. We've had some very significant gifts."

The fundraising push is about to ramp up. Mr. Ryan and Mayor Daley are to speak next month at an Economic Club dinner. Mr. Ryan's committee will follow that in January or February with a fundraising event, the first of several, Mr. McKenna says.

Mr. Ryan, a prodigious donor and fundraiser for Northwestern University and Rush University Medical Center, has impressed donors like Michael Keiser, co-founder of Chicago's Recycled Paper Greetings Inc.

"I think the mayor and Pat Ryan have done a great job. They've created a get-on-the-bandwagon feeling," says Mr. Keiser, who wouldn't disclose how much he gave. "I'm very impressed by Chicago's leadership. It was a germ of an idea eight months ago. Now it's all the way to the USOC and, I think, soon beyond."

[the urban politician]

^ It's a proven fact that Chicago can raise nearly half a billion dollars. I think the city can pull this off, esp considering that the event isn't for another 10 years, and thus concerns that this huge corporate expenditure is too close to the creation of Millennium Park can be put aside. Eight hundred mill is a lot, there's no doubt. But why are we only limiting fund-raising efforts to companies in the Chicago area or greater midwest? Chicago's corporate community has a lot of ties to the east coast as well. It's definitely not impossible.

Here's my thing:

If all of the following happens by the year 2016, Chicago will be the miracle city of the world. These are my 'Miracle 7':

1) Chicago wins the 2016 Olympics and successfully hosts them
2) Circle Line gets built
3) The state of Illinois commits more money into operating Chicago's transit system
4) "Chicago Spire" gets built
5) Block 37 gets finished as planned
6) Airport Express service at least begins construction
7) Some sort of light rail system starts construction for RN/Streeterville

[EtherealMist]

thats a nice list right there

[Marcu]

^
Here's my thing:


7) Some sort of light rail system starts construction for RN/Streeterville

Why is there a need for light rail in that particular area? Doesn't the red line serve it fairly well. Also, should we limit light rail to only the richest part of town while the rest of the city is stuck with the old heavy rail?

[LA21st]

Served by the red line? Most of it is quite a hike from State/Grand. What about tourists getting to Navy Pier? Streeterville needs light rail, but only if it is a line that serves the rest of the lakefront. Northwestern Downtown Campus, Lakeshore East, Lincoln Park, MP/Grant Park, Museum Campus, McCormick Place.

So many attractions are near the lakefront but public transit isnt that close.