Listen up, Chicago -- I have something important to tell you:
Don't be disappointed.
Sure, you didn't win the bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics from the International Olympic Committee (IOC). However, missing out on holding the XXXI Olympiad might not be such a bad thing -- at least it means you won't have to put up with seven years of your city being retro-fitted to host the two-and-a-half week long Games.
Chicago was considered by some to be the favorite heading into the Oct. 2 final vote, but the selection committee decided to pick Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. When the city was chosen, cameras panned the beautiful beaches of Rio, and the thousands of joyous Brazilians a starkly contrasted the downtrodden Chicagoans.
The fact that fewer than half of all Chicago residents were in favor of hosting the Games certainly didn't help advance the city's cause. A recent Chicago Tribune/WGN poll found that only 47 percent of Chicagoans supported the 2016 Olympics coming to the Windy City -- not exactly the overwhelming support needed to pull off such a monumental project. And with seven years of construction and the possible displacement of numerous residents on the city's South Side, the approval rating would surely have plummeted as citizens realized the selection's consequences.
Olympic construction in the city's South Side was supported by First Lady Michelle Obama who, along with her husband, campaigned fervently for the selection of Chicago. In an interview with Democracy Now, sportswriter Dave Zirin commented on the topic, raising the point that many of the people in that part of the city could be forced to move to make room for the numerous facilities the Games would require. The property value would presumably go up after the Olympics ended and, according to Zirin, the resulting gentrification would prevent many lower-wage Chicagoans from moving
back into the affected neighborhoods.
And then there's the budget thing.
The day Rio was chosen, Zirin presented a number of sobering facts regarding the financial aftermath on the city that hosts the Games, making note of the incredible economic burden faced by Olympic host cities. According to Zirin, Athens went 1,000 percent over budget to host the 2004 Summer Games while Montreal only finished paying off debts for the 1976 Olympics three years ago.
Additionally, the facilities that must be built to host the Games are sometimes just dismantled after the events conclude. There are some exceptions, like Turner Field, home of the Atlanta Braves, which was built in conjunction with the 1996 Summer Olympics. But these stadiums frequently feel out-of-place and awkward -- Montreal's Olympic Stadium was a dismal place to watch baseball because of its cavernous interior that fell out of style as more intimate parks were built starting in the 1990s.
The Chicago Business Journal said in 2007 that the Chicago committee planned to build a $366 million temporary Olympic Stadium to compliment the $1.1 billion Olympic Village. That's quite a bit of money already, but many host cities find that they end up paying much more than the initial reports. And although most of the projected costs of a Chicago Olympiad were to be paid by private donors, once the costs inevitably spiraled out of control, taxpayers would presumably be left shouldering the balance.
Steve Chapman, writer for the Chicago Tribune, said in an Oct. 4 column that London, the host of the 2012 Summer Games, has already had its projected costs quadruple to $15 billion. The city said total costs could reach as high as $40 billion by the time the torch is lit.
So Chicago, don't worry about not getting to present yourself on the international stage -- your citizens, and your wallets, will thank you later.
