After a long and expensive campaign, New York’s stadium proposal collapsed amid the city’s fractious politics. Of the five finalist cities, New York finished ahead of only Moscow and far behind three other European capitals, Madrid, Paris and the eventual winner, London.
USOC President Peter Ueberroth swore he wouldn’t let America embarrass itself in that fashion again and that the next bid would be one that could compete with the best the world had to offer. Ueberroth now believes that the American candidate can meet that standard. And on Saturday, April 14, the UOC will choose America’s bid city for 2016 from two finalists, Los Angeles and Chicago.
Either American city will face—in a campaign that will end with an IOC vote in the summer of 2009—many of the same problems that New York did. Even in the corporate-minded, Western-values world of the IOC, the United States has bruised a lot of feelings, with both its foreign policy and its Olympic follies. The latter includes the 1996 Atlanta Games, that offended the IOC hierarchy with its tacky, flea-market ethic. Then followed the bribery scandal linked to the 2002 Salt Lake City Games.
Which city is in the best position to surmount those obstacles: Los Angeles, a proven winner at Olympic enterprise, which—thanks to the legacy of two previous Games, in 1932 and 1984—already has most of the facilities in place; or Chicago, a fresh, heartland face with no past success stories nor any historical baggage. If it comes down to my vote (or, in grand Chicago tradition, to those of any of my deceased relatives), here are 10 reasons to pick the fresh face over the tried and true:
Diversity: though London did win its third Olympics, it will have waited 64 years between Games. If Los Angeles gets the nod, that interval will only be 32 years. Many of the veteran IOC delegates can recall the last L.A. Olympics, which makes the proposition feel a little stale. The IOC likes to spread the Games around and is more likely to get excited about an American newcomer. And the U.S. bid city will need all the excitement it can muster to defeat potential 2016 contenders like Rome, Madrid, Tokyo, St. Petersburg and Berlin.
Legacy: the IOC claims it wants to keep expenses down. But it never votes that way. The organization is obsessed with legacy, like the London bid, which will transform that city’s East End; the historic Beijing 2008 undertaking, with its glorious new facilities, or the 2004 Games that modernized Athens. L.A. lacks that component. Chicago’s bid would do far more to change the face of a city.
Boosterism: when I visited L.A. before the 1984 Olympics, there was great fear of massive gridlock. It never happened, largely because anyone who could afford it bolted town. L.A. was a gracious host, but in its typical laid-back way: no sweat, no big deal. And an Olympics would be a big deal in Chicago. Chicago has always had a second-city complex and now that it is actually the third city, the chip on the shoulder has only grown bigger. But it is the city of big shoulders and can turn that chip into an asset. The locals would see an Olympics as an issue of civic pride, not an inconvenience, and would rally behind the enterprise.
Political Clout: L.A. doesn’t need the political consensus that New York did, since it isn’t trying to rebuild the city. Still, it gives New York a run for the money when it comes to political combativeness. Chicago is hardly a genteel political environment. But while Mayor Richard Daley doesn’t command a political machine operating in absolute lockstep like his father did, he would view an Olympics as his crowning achievement. That’s because Daley is odds-on to still be in office 2016—which isn’t the case for L.A.’s mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.
Water: much of a Chicago Olympics would take place within view of the magnificent lakefront. Sure, Lake Michigan ain’t the Pacific. But the existing facilities, where much of the L.A. Games would be played, don’t offer much of a glimpse of water. By contrast, Lake Michigan would be a focal point of a Chicago Games. Better the lake you can see than the ocean that you can’t.
Surprise! Chicago is a hidden gem, perhaps America’s most beautiful and certainly its most architecturally enthralling city. But a lot of people, here and abroad, have no clue. I am continually meeting people who visit Chicago for the first time and are stunned by how gorgeous it is, and at how truly nice and friendly the people are. Overseas, many folks still know little about Chicago beyond Al Capone. They are in for a pleasant surprise. Low expectations work well for bid cities.
The Grid: anybody can find his way around Chicago, which is laid out as a numerical grid. And its Olympic plan is relatively compact, certainly compared to L.A.’s, as well as almost entirely accessible on public transportation. Doesn’t everybody love the El? Certainly everybody who saw “Risky Business” does.
Celebrity: would you rather spy Brad and Angelina on a Hollywood set or Mike Ditka snarfing a Polish in Lincoln Park? And if you are wrestling with that one, let me say one more word: Oprah! Maybe she’ll give every visitor a car.
Pizza: if you have only sampled deep-dish Chicago pizza at some franchise like Uno’s, you have no clue what you’ve been missing. On my last visit to Chicago I entered Due’s, the sister joint of the original Uno’s, with some trepidation, fearful that it would not live up to my memories. But it was every bit as good as I remembered.
Comedy: Elaine May and Mike Nichols, John Belushi, Bill Murray, Second City and the Cubs, who by 2016 will be 107 years without a title and still counting.
That’s my pitch: da mayor, the lake, the El, Oprah, Due’s pizza, “cheezborger, cheezborger” and lots more. Let’s offer the Olympic world a glimpse of our heartland. The IOC’s bigs are sure to find it their kind of town.
