What If Chicago Had Been Awarded The 2016 Olympics? Part 2
Los Angeles and Atlanta offer insight in how an Olympics would've impacted Chicago.
Rendering of the proposed Olympic Village for the Chicago 2016 bid. Source: chicagotribune.com
When I asked the “what if” question about Chicago being awarded the 2016 Olympics, it was just prior to the event itself. I noted some possible outcomes of a Chicago Olympics, but eight years beyond that today offers even greater perspective. However, before I answer any “what if” questions, it’s appropriate to establish the context of the Olympic Games, as well as what other cities have done and how they’ve fared.
To consider what Chicago might’ve looked like after a 2016 Games, it’s instructive to look at two other American cities to host the Olympics in the last 40 years – Los Angeles (1984) and Atlanta (1996).
Los Angeles is probably the easier comparison because of its similar metro area size at the time. In 1980 Greater LA had about 11.5 million residents; in 2010 Greater Chicago had around 9.5 million. Metro Atlanta was much smaller in comparison to LA or Chicago at the time of the 1996 Games, with approximately 2.9 million. But it’s useful to compare Chicago with both LA and Atlanta because the anticipated outcomes were different for each host city.
Los Angeles 1984
Los Angeles had more than its share of social problems when the International Olympic Committee (IOC) awarded the Games to the city in 1978. LA was 13 years removed from the Watts Riots and racial tensions were still high. The early 1980s recession had ended but there was still high unemployment plaguing the nation.
The Olympic movement was faring even worse. The 1972 Olympics were overshadowed by the Munich Massacre, when a Palestinian strike team killed and kidnapped Israeli athletes and coaches. Steep cost overruns threatened the 1976 Olympics in Montreal. Cold War tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union overshadowed the 1980 Moscow Olympics. The U.S. and 65 other countries boycotted the 1980 Games over the Soviet Union’s involvement in the Soviet-Afghan War. By the time Los Angeles pursued the 1984 Games, its only competition was Tehran, Iran – which was withdrawn because of political instability that would later lead to the Iranian Revolution. Los Angeles was awarded the Games by default.
Even so, LA did not pursue the Games to revitalize the region or create a new image; LA wanted to make money. LA marketed its bid as a cost-effective way to produce a high-quality event because of its size and existing facilities. It would be the first privately financed Olympics, relieving federal, state and local governments of staggering expenses. Many of the facilities established for the 1932 Games, also in Los Angeles, were still around and available. Peter Ueberroth, the Los Angeles Olympic Committee’s chief organizer for the event, aggressively pursued sponsorships to inject money into the Games.
LA also marketed its bid by leaning on its Hollywood roots to produce a highly watchable spectacle. LA would utilize its entertainment industry skill set to create a new vibe for the Games. The 1984 Olympics were noted for its bright design aesthetic and top-notch production quality. The Games were fantastic for reviving the Olympic movement when it desperately needed reviving. However, it did little to revitalize troubled parts of the region.
Atlanta 1996
Atlanta’s pursuit of the 1996 Olympics was definitely an attempt to establish a new image for a rising metropolis. Atlanta was a dark-horse candidate that eventually won out over Toronto and Melbourne.
It’s probably fair to say that the Atlanta bid was designed as an extensive downtown revitalization project. The Centennial Olympic Stadium and Centennial Olympic Park were the key infrastructure projects of the effort. But you can read what the IOC itself says of the Games’ impact on Atlanta:
“The city’s tradition of public and private partnerships empowered the Atlanta 1996 Organising Committee, the business community and various government entities to use the momentum created by the Games to propel the regeneration of downtown Atlanta, improving the quality of life for residents while offering new opportunities to businesses…
Atlanta 1996 accelerated a range of urban development projects aimed at improving the quality of life for inhabitants in downtown Atlanta, where most of the competition venues were concentrated.
As an example, Summerhill and Techwood Clark Howell Homes, two struggling neighbourhoods adjacent to Olympic venues, received significant investment. As part of a Games-fuelled redevelopment scheme led by the Atlanta Housing Authority and the Atlanta Development Authority, nearly 150 new housing units were built in Summerhill and more than 780 were completed in Techwood Clark Howell Homes, which was renamed Centennial Place in 1997 and remains a thriving mixed-income neighbourhood today.
In addition, three inner-city parks were upgraded, more than 10,000 trees planted and more than USD 500 million spent on new landscaped plazas and promenades. Although much of the transport focus was on Games-time provision, some improvements were made to the wider network. A regional traffic management system was incorporated in the city centre, two downtown bridges reconstructed and pedestrian access between transport links and sporting hubs improved.
However, while some communities in downtown Atlanta benefited from the urban redevelopment schemes, others were adversely impacted, including those relocated to the northwest portion of the city, those who felt that the use value of their homes and neighbourhoods had been reduced through the transformation of the area and those affected by gentrification processes.”
Chicago 2016
Chicago’s bid is probably best described as a combination of the Los Angeles and Atlanta bids. It had the existing facilities and infrastructure to handle the Games, like Los Angeles. Yet Chicago also sought to use the Games as a revitalization catalyst, like Atlanta. But Chicago’s approach was different. Instead of using the Games as a downtown development accelerator, it wanted to accelerate the development of the city’s south lakefront.
Two proposals in the bid were of note. The first was the development of a temporary, 80,000 seat Olympic stadium located at Washington Park, on the city’s South Side. The stadium would’ve been torn down after the Games, but it’s presumed the bidding team believed that private developers would be incentivized to build permanent residential and commercial structures during and after the Olympics. The second proposal was an Olympic Village that would’ve been built on 48 acres of south lakefront property near 31st Street that was formerly the site of Michael Reese Hospital. The hospital closed in 2008 and the site was cleared over the next several months. At the time of the Olympic bid it was estimated that the construction cost of the Village would be $1.1 billion.
I don’t know for certain, but my guess is the site would’ve been renovated as a major mixed-use development after the Olympics. It would’ve stimulated South Side lakefront development. Taken together with development around Washington Park, just two miles southwest of the Olympic Village site, the South Side would’ve seen a huge investment. Both sites also would’ve been near the University of Chicago and its affluent host neighborhood, Hyde Park. It’s easy to see that if Chicago had been awarded the 2016 Games, billions of dollars would’ve been spent to dramatically alter the South Side.
And that fomented the South Side backlash against the bid.
I expected to end this series with this post, but I wrote much more to establish the context than I initially thought I would. You’ll see a part 3 tomorrow.