What If Chicago Had Been Awarded the 2016 Olympics? Part 1

Early 2000s Chicago had a "cusp of global city stardom" vibe, and the Olympic bid epitomized that. But it lost to Rio de Janeiro and its star has faded. What if it had won?

Rendering of Chicago in 2016, had the Olympics been awarded to the city.  Ah, what could have been.  Source: Chicago Bid Book via chicago.curbed.com

(Note: next month, the 2024 Olympics will commence in Paris. Every four years I’m reminded that Chicago very nearly was awarded the 2016 Games by the IOC, but a late pivot by (bribed?) electors made Rio de Janiero the winner. I saw this as a watershed moment for the city, and still do. At my previous blog I wrote about the failed effort twice, once in 2014 and as a repost with a postscript in 2016. Today I’m bringing back the 2016 version. Tomorrow I’ll post a more thorough “what if” on a Chicago after a successful 2016 Olympics, informed by what we know of what’s taken place in the last eight years. Look for that content tomorrow. -Pete)

Five years ago, just prior to the announcement by the IOC of who would host the 2016 Olympics, Chicago's bid was assumed to be in a commanding lead.  Unfortunately for the Windy City, When the IOC votes were cast on October 2, 2009, Chicago was stunningly eliminated on the first ballot.   The speculation was that many international IOC delegates were resentful of another polished bid once again from the U.S., and aggressively sought reasons not to support the Chicago bid.  The USOC had been successful in getting Summer Olympics in 1984 (Los Angeles) and 1996 (Atlanta, in a move that particularly stung the international community), and Winter Olympics in 1980 (Lake Placid) and 2002 (Salt Lake City).  If you include the 2010 Winter Games in Vancouver and the 1988 Winter Games in Calgary, that would've been six North American Olympics out of 17 site bids years prior to that 2009 vote, or one-third of all Olympic sites over that period.  Relatedly, the South American continent has never hosted an Olympics, and there was a strong contingent that supported the expansion of the Olympic brand to meet its true international mission.  The beautiful Brazilian city of Rio de Janeiro ultimately won.

How's that working out now?

It appears that Rio's preparation for the 2016 Games is not going well at all.  Last week, the Los Angeles Times reported that an IOC vice president spoke out about the lack of progress in Rio.  The damning quote:

"We have become very concerned," John Coates told the Australian Associated Press. "And this is against a city that's got social issues that also have to be addressed; a country that's also trying to deal with the FIFA World Cup coming up in a few months."

And those social issues he refers to?  Here'sthe Atlantic Cities account of recent events there:

"Clashes last week between favela residents and police in Rio de Janeiro led to flaming barricades, the partial shutdown of the iconic Copacabana neighborhood, and at least one shooting victim. Less than six weeks from the start of the World Cup, Rio and its slums appear to be teetering on the brink of chaos.

Favela residents say they’re protesting human rights violations on the part of police forces. Meanwhile, drug dealers are regaining territory amid the chaos, and authorities are leaning on military reinforcements to keep order."

Here's hoping that things can turn around in Rio and that the city can have a safe and successful 2014 World Cup (slated to start in six weeks, and also plagued with delays) as well as 2016 Olympics.  But this also begs the question -- where would Chicago be today had it won the bid in 2009?

I should note by starting that I was a supporter of Chicago getting the Games at that time, so my perceptions of what-could-have-been may be far rosier than someone who was not a supporter.  And trust me: not everyone in Chicago was a supporter of the Olympic bid.  A Chicago Tribune poll conducted in August 2009 said 47% of respondents supported the bid, while 45% were against it.  Dissent came largely from the South Side, where the Olympic Village and many venues for the Games were proposed as an economic development stimulus for the area.

This is purely my speculation, but I see four things that would be quite evident today had Chicago been awarded the 2016 Olympics:

No construction delays or concerns. The Chicago bid relied heavily on existing facilities for Olympic venues.  Professional sports venues like Soldier Field, the United Center, Wrigley Field, U.S. Cellular Field and Toyota Park, as well as other sites like Allstate Arena, Sears Centre, and sports venues at virtually every college location in Chicago were going to be employed for the Games.  The key missing piece, however, was an appropriate site for track and field events and the Opening and Closing ceremonies.  Chicago would've constructed an 80,000-seat temporary stadium in Washington Park on the city's South Side.  The stadium would've been pared down to a 10,000-seat multipurpose venue after the Olympics.  An image of the stadium from the Chicago Bid Book:

Chicago was presumed to have a strong facilities advantage over its competition from Madrid, Tokyo and Rio.

Commercial and residential "boomlet" on the Chicago lakefront.  This is a little harder to speculate on, in part because the Olympic selection came in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.  But there is a sense that the Olympics would have provided a boost to investment from the South Loop southward to Hyde Park.  The Olympic Village was proposed for the former Michael Reese Hospital site near 31st Street and the lakefront, in the Bronzeville neighborhood, and it would've been converted to residential uses after the Games.  I think it's reasonable to assume that the Games would have drawn new attention to an often-neglected part of the city, and investment would've shot up accordingly.

The "Global City" bat-signal.  Chicago is often viewed by those who are not from here as being on the cusp of global city status but not quite there (best case), or being the most livable of generally unlivable Rust Belt cities (worst case).  I think the Olympics would have served as a strong signal to the international community that Chicago was indeed ready to be a very visible international player, and would've begun to attract international investment to a far greater extent than it does today.  That would mean more international businesses attracted to Chicago's air and rail connectivity to the interior of the nation, and more corporate headquarters moving here -- perhaps U.S.-based corporations relocating from more expensive coastal locations, or international corporations seeking to move North American headquarters to a more central location.  Elite educational institutions like Northwestern and the University of Chicago would be viewed even more highly, and other institutions would have received a boost.  Chicago would have gotten a significant profile boost akin to what Los Angeles (1984), Barcelona (1992) and Sydney (2000) received.  (Side note: I often think Atlanta squandered its chance to raise its profile with the '96 Games.  Rembert Browne at Grantland seems to agree.)

The City's crime issues would be a bigger national topic of discussion.  Sadly, I don't think the Olympics would have done anything to stem the violence epidemic that plagues parts of the city today, and even though it does garner lots of national attention now, it would have been even moreso if the Olympics were headed here.  In fact, with a President not only from Chicago, but from the very neighborhood where the Games would've occurred, I think Chicago violent crime would've become an issue in the 2014 midterm elections because it would have been laid at the feet of President Obama.

So much political, corporate and philanthropic money and energy was thrown at this effort that I think Chicago still hasn't fully recovered from it.  For 2 1/2 years prior to the October 2009 announcement, this effort was Chicago's raison d'etre.  It was to be the preeminent achievement of Mayor Richard M. Daley.  But five years after that stunning vote, Chicago is still trying to sort out what it is, and where to go.

---

Postscript

The further we move from that day in 2009 when Chicago lost out to Rio, the more I view that as a watershed moment for the city.  Nearly seven years on, there's still a sense that Chicago is searching for what it can be.  I can't underscore point #2 above enough: a successful Olympics in Chicago had the potential to vault its global city status on par with the most global of global cities.  That, of course, was what Mayor Richard M. Daley and Chicago officials were banking on.  There was no guarantee of this, however.  LA's hosting in 1984 brought a glint to Southern California, but defense industry job losses, social unrest (remember Rodney King?) and a devastating earthquake over the next ten years gave the region a lot to recover from.

As I mentioned above in the original piece, I was pretty pro-Olympics circa 2009 because I saw it as a chance to boost revitalization efforts on the South Side.  The appeal of the Chicago bid to the IOC (and the concern voiced by opponents) was its concentrated set of venues along the city's beautiful lakefront, from north to south, with a potentially spectacular Olympic Village constructed on an old hospital site on the near south lakefront.  While we can all question the long-term impacts of recent Olympics -- which frankly seem to diminish with every subsequent Games -- I thought the Chicago bid's emphasis on south lakefront venues could have had an impact similar to the 1893 World's Fair, for the same area.  The Olympics would've offered an opportunity for private investment to come into the area in ways it hadn't before, buttressed by significant infrastructure investment.

But then there's what we know now of Chicago that we didn't know in 2009, or even in 2014.

I'd now amend point #1 above and say that there may have ultimately been some construction delays in Chicago.  Why?  Chicago's fiscal crisis, which has grown in awareness and importance since Mayor Daley left office and Mayor Rahm Emanuel took over in 2011.  Chicago Public Schools have been in a state just as dire, and I think the Chicago Teachers Union would've used the Olympics platform similarly to how they've been doing since their 2012 strike.  The city would've had to borrow immensely to pay for infrastructure improvements at exorbitant rates because of its low bond rating, at it's quite possible that delays would've ensued.  Mayor Daley may have been able to twist some arms to get some local corporate cooperation; it's uncertain how Mayor Emanuel would've operated in that environment.

Lastly, I think the city's crime issues would've been front and center in national discussions, precisely because the Olympics would be coming.  I wrote the above piece just three months before the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, MO, which kicked off intense debate about police and community interactions.  Even more, I wrote this five months before the Laquan McDonald shooting in Chicago, whose details didn't surface publicly until last fall.  Chicago has been called into question for why violent crime hasn't fallen to the extent it has in other large cities nationwide; the greater national and international platform might have invited additional scrutiny.