Las Urbanistas

By Kathy Bergen, Tribune staff reporter. Tribune staff writer Philip Hersh contributed to this report
September 28, 2006

As Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco pull the veils from their proposals to host the 2016 Summer Games, one thing is becoming crystal clear: Of the three, Chicago is facing the highest hurdles at this time.

Chicago is new to the bid process, while its competitors are veterans with established organizations and existing road maps. Chicago’s stadium plan is the most ambitious and expensive, which will require more intensive private fundraising.

And, while informal polling by the U.S. Olympic Committee showed strong international interest in Chicago earlier this year, some observers believe Chicago’s image overseas is dated, linked more to stockyards, steel and Al Capone than to its stunning skyline, blossoming Millennium Park and first-rate cultural and culinary offerings.

“I travel the world a lot … and it astounds me how many people still view Chicago as Al Capone city, and Michael Jordan,” said Marc Ganis, an expert in sports facility development.

Most early bets are being placed on San Francisco, which was the first runner-up in the domestic competition for 2012 behind New York. And some others are betting on two-time Olympics host Los Angeles, which has most of its venues in place.

“My gut feeling is that San Francisco might have an edge this time around,” said Robert Livingstone, the producer of GamesBids.com, in Toronto. “It’s got experience from 2012, it’s got a lot of attractive international elements, and [Los Angeles] has already had the Olympics twice.”

Still, it remains a horse race, and nobody is counting Chicago out just yet.

“Chicago has acquitted itself extremely well so far, but there is a tremendous amount to do,” said Ganis, president of Sportscorp Ltd.

The Chicago 2016 Committee “has got to work on romance,” said A.D. Frazier, who was the chief operating officer of the 1996 Atlanta Games. “They have got to overcome the steak-and-potatoes reputation.”

Chicago voiced confidence in its approach.

“Our focus really has been on the athlete’s experience … and making a significant investment in the Games and the athletes,” said Doug Arnot, director of venue development and operations for the Chicago 2016 Committee. The city’s plan is compact, with many venues along the lakefront and near downtown, including an Olympic Village south of McCormick Place and a temporary main stadium in Washington Park, near the University of Chicago.

All three cities submitted revised proposals to the U.S. Olympic Committee last Friday, and the organization will issue evaluations of those proposals in late October. The field may be narrowed afterwards.

By year’s end, the USOC will decide whether to float a U.S. bid city, and if it goes forward, pick the city by early April.

Chicago is not alone in facing hurdles.

Los Angeles will have to fight a “same-old, same-old” stigma and perhaps some lingering hard feelings that it didn’t share the $225 million surplus from the 1984 Games with the international Olympics movement. And San Francisco will have to prove it can rally all necessary public authorities, a shortcoming in its bid to host the 2012 Games, some observers say.

But those two cities do have some advantages.

San Francisco found a way to bring the centerpiece stadium for opening and closing ceremonies, track and field, and soccer finals into the city, along the San Francisco Bay. The proposal involves temporary modifications to a planned new stadium for the 49ers football team.

And while no price tag has been disclosed for the Olympics adaptations, it is likely to be in the neighborhood of $35 million, a fraction of the $300 million Chicago estimates it would cost to build a temporary stadium in Washington Park on the South Side and later convert it into a 10,000-seat below-ground arena.

San Francisco’s previous bid, for the 2012 Summer Games, was criticized for spread-out venues.

“The farthest bus ride for any athletes is 54 minutes, which means every single athlete will be able to stay in that one village,” said Mark Dolley, a spokesman for the San Francisco 2016 Bid Committee.

Still, San Francisco’s previous run “had serious organizational questions that may or may not have been resolved,” said John MacAloon, an Olympics scholar at the University of Chicago. The key issue was “how committed are all the public authorities?”

San Francisco is the only finalist that hasn’t disclosed its full venue plan, saying it’s still talking with affected communities.

Los Angeles, meanwhile, has most of its venues in place, but emphasizes that at least 70 percent of the sports will be in different facilities than in 1984.

“The Games will be held in beautiful new venues that are already in existence,” said Barry Sanders, chairman of the Southern California Committee for the Olympic Games. The Coliseum, as it did in 1932 and 1984, would serve as the main stadium once a track is re-installed.

Costs for permanent and temporary construction for the Games should be less than $150 million, including $20 million to put the track in the stadium.

In contrast, Chicago’s proposal involves nearly $2 billion in privately financed construction, including $300 million for the stadium, and $1 billion for an Olympic Village south of McCormick Place.

But Los Angeles’ having hosted two previous Games could work against it.

Some International Olympic Committee members still resent that the 1984 surplus wasn’t shared with the international movement, said MacAloon, of the U of C.

Sanders rejects this observation, saying the surplus has been used to foster youth sports. In any case, for 2016, “we are doing things differently, trying to employ all the best lessons 32 years later,” he said.

While Chicago faces an uphill battle, it remains squarely in the game, say a number of observers.

Chicago’s bid is the most compact of the three. “And Chicago has a great airport; the mass transit is superior, the hotel accommodations are ample,” said Frazier.

And another strength, say observers, is political will.

“The mayor brings tremendous strength and credibility … which is very important to the USOC and the IOC,” said Jay Kriegel, who was executive director of New York City’s bid for the 2012 Games, which ultimately went to London.

———-

kbergen@tribune.com

- - -

San Francisco

Weaknesses:
- Political cohesion of region in question
- Stadium plan still in flux

Strengths:
- Romantic image overseas
- First runner-up in last domestic contest
- Stadium deal, if successful, would be low-cost

Chicago

Weaknesses:
- Newcomer to the Olympic bid process
- Ambitious construction program with significant fundraising challenge.
- Outdated image overseas as meat-and-potatoes town

Strengths:
- Venues would be compact, highlight lakefront
- Airport, hotel accommodations and mass transit
- Ability to get things done, strong-willed mayor
- Dazzling public space to celebrate the games

Los Angeles

Weaknesses:
- Been there, done that: City has hosted two Olympics
- Hard feelings may linger over use of 1984 Games surplus

Strengths:
- Most venues already exist
- Construction costs will be low
- Hollywood image an easy sell

By Kathy Bergen, Philip Hersh and Gary Washburn, Tribune staff reporters
September 21, 2006

A 2016 Summer Olympics in Chicago would spread beyond the downtown lakefront to include a temporary 95,000-seat stadium in a historic South Side park under a dramatically revised plan unveiled Wednesday.

Washington Park, a 350-acre expanse designed by legendary landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted and his partner Calvert Vaux, would be the site of the temporary stadium for opening and closing ceremonies and track and field events.

After the Olympics, the privately financed facility would be converted to a below-ground, oval 10,000-seat stadium that could be used for track-and-field events, as well as an amphitheater for community events.

“The Olympic Games will help revitalize Washington Park … and generate new jobs in tourism, retailing and other areas of the economy,” Mayor Richard Daley said during a press conference at the park, just west of Hyde Park. The revised plan comes at a politically charged time for the mayor, who likely will face at least three African-American challengers if he chooses to seek re-election, as expected.

So far, the plan appears to be embraced by aldermen in the area, and criticized by park preservationists. Olympics observers see it as enhancing the city’s bid prospects.

Originally, the city talked of using Soldier Field and a temporary stadium just south of Soldier Field for opening and closing ceremonies and track and field.

Criticism of a dual-stadium idea by U.S. and international Olympic officials led Chicago officials to come up with the latest plan. The lakefront site was abandoned because the space was considered too small.

Chicago 2016 Committee Chairman Patrick Ryan declined to give a price tag for the facility. The stadium that had been planned for south of Soldier Field was to cost $200 million.

The new plan will be submitted to the U.S. Olympic Committee on Friday. Chicago, San Francisco and Los Angeles are finalists to become the U.S. bidder, should the USOC decide to proceed with a bid.

Wednesday’s announcement could defuse some criticism aimed at Daley, whose foes contend that the mayor has shortchanged some neighborhoods while improving downtown.

If the stadium is built, jobs and contracts “will be the whole issue,” Daley said. Neighborhood residents “have to have opportunities … Who lives out here? African-Americans in large percentages, so they are going to be part and parcel of this.” The park is near several predominantly African-American neighborhoods, including Woodlawn.

The stadium issue could become political. Bill “Dock” Walls and Dorothy Brown have announced their candidacies for mayor in the February election, and U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) has said he is leaning toward a run.

Jackson welcomed a South Side stadium, but added that neighborhoods should benefit from improvements to schools and transportation.

And Ald. Ricardo Munoz (22nd) questioned whether the stadium would be funded completely with private resources. He also questioned pouring resources into an Olympic bid rather than into neighborhood parks and schools.

Several African-American aldermen whose constituents live around the stadium site appeared at the press conference with Daley in support.

“I am just ecstatic [about] the economic boom that this could have for us, the jobs and contract opportunities that this could have,” said one of them, Ald. Arenda Troutman (20th), whose ward takes in Washington Park. “This is major.”

Chicago’s Olympics planners have not yet released projections on job creation and economic impact. But they say the 2000 Games contributed $6.5 billion to the economy of Sydney.

Ryan insisted having the stadium in Washington Park would not detract from the city’s theme of having a compact Games in the center of the city. Washington Park is about six miles south of Soldier Field.

And the appeal of giving TV broadcasters lakefront pictures will not be lost, he said. Several venues will remain on the lakefront in Chicago’s new plan.

The committee also promises improved streets and transportation to the park, more parking, better lighting and security measures, new pedestrian and bicycle paths, and enhanced beautification, including a revitalized lagoon and wetlands.

“We will restore it to the original grandeur,” Ryan said.

The Friends of the Parks, an advocacy group, isn’t buying it.

“It seems to me this plan would destroy the legacy of Olmsted in that park,” said Erma Tranter, president of Friends of the Parks.

Olmsted designed the space in 1871 with the idea of having ponds, lagoons with islands and an open meadow.

“It doesn’t sound like a sunken stadium fits in with Frederick Law Olmsted’s design of the park, which is an historic landmark,” Tranter said.

Her group, which supports the idea of a 2016 Olympics, would prefer a site in an area that needs redevelopment, such as the Southeast Side lakefront.

Some observers say the changes could strengthen the city’s bid.

“From the USOC’s perspective, it would add a notion of certainty,” said Marc Ganis, an expert in sports facility development. “The land is already owned by the city, through the park district, so they can decide what to do with the property.”

———-

kbergen@tribune.com

phersh@tribune.com

gwashburn@tribune.com

Hyde Parkers fear loss of park, but to the west residents express a cautious optimism

By Johnathon E. Briggs and Ray Quintanilla, Tribune staff reporters. Tribune staff reporter Rex Huppke contributed to this report
September 21, 2006

Lee Hogan’s soul food restaurant, specializing in salmon croquettes and short ribs, sits alongside dollar stores and liquor shops on a stretch of Garfield Boulevard that, like much of the Washington Park neighborhood, has seen better days.

Weathered buildings border vacant lots covered in knee-high grass. A smattering of new developments have risen, condominiums that hint at gentrification. But for the most part, the neighborhood looks like it could use an economic shot in the arm.

That shot could be the proposed Olympic stadium in Washington Park announced Wednesday–a big if, but one that has residents and business owners talking.

“I think it would be good,” Hogan said Wednesday, hard at work at Ms. Lee’s Good Food, which she has run for eight years. “We need something down here. We don’t have anything.”

Washington Park itself, designed in the late 1800s by famed landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted, rests between two distinctly different neighborhoods–booming Hyde Park to the east and struggling Washington Park to the west. Each side has a distinct view of the proposed stadium plan.

Sandra Box, who lives in Hyde Park, stopped during one of her twice weekly jogs through the park Wednesday evening and considered the addition of a 95,000-seat structure, clearly concerned with the aesthetics.

“If they build a stadium, there’s a good chance the city will curtail public access to the park,” said Box, 28, a real estate agent. “That would be too bad, because it’s a wonderful neighborhood park right now.”

Dorothy Preshon, 65, echoed Box’s concern.

“I’m not so sure it’s a good fit,” Preshon said, standing at the door of her brick town houseoverlooking Washington Park from the east. “The park has lots of activity as it is. Who is going to police all the noise?”

While Hyde Park has long been an island of economic vitality on the South Side, the Washington Park neighborhood, about seven miles south of downtown, remains a working- and middle-class enclave plagued by under-population and poverty. Once home to a mix of Irish, Greeks, Russians and Lithuanians, by 1960 the neighborhood was 99 percent black.

Many believe the Olympics could be a boon for the area.

Jeffrey Sims, 44, has lived in Washington Park for 15 years. He has seen the trickle of new development, but knows it’s not enough.

“It’s a great idea,” he said of the stadium. “People need to get back to work. People who oppose this aren’t concerned about jobs.”

Yet business owners feel torn. They’d welcome the money and attention that would come with being on the world stage, but they wonder whether new prosperity might put them in the crosshairs of corporate chains.

“They’re not going to let us stay here,” said Robin Hall, owner of a dollar store on Garfield Boulevard.

Hall fears her rent would go up and she’d get pushed out. She said she’s already seen the change coming–new buildings here and there, more SUVs parked on the street. The gentrification that marks Hyde Park has begun creeping into Washington Park, slowly.

Shaun Keez, 37, has lived in Washington Park for 10 years. He’d welcome the stadium if it would actually bring jobs for people in the neighborhood. But he doubts that would happen.

“It may result in jobs at concession stands, but I don’t know that it’s going to do anything for the people in the community,” Keez said. “It seems like Chicago is becoming a place for middle-class and upper-class people.”

Hogan works at her restaurant each day from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., so she’s around enough to catch even small changes in the neighborhood. When she considers the Olympics landing on her Garfield Boulevard storefront, she speaks like a businesswoman who will survive, with or without the city’s help.

“The boulevard is tough,” Hogan said. “But if you can make it on the boulevard, you can make it anywhere.”

———-

jebriggs@tribune.com

By Blair Kamin, Tribune architecture critic
September 21, 2006

If Chicago actually lands the 2016 Olympics, the dramatic shift in the city’s main stadium plan announced Wednesday is likely to go down as a turning point.

Under a clear blue sky, on a broad green meadow with the downtown skyline preening in the distant background, Mayor Richard Daley and his Olympic point man, insurance executive Patrick Ryan, implicitly admitted that their first stadium plan was a loser and introduced another one, which, if properly handled, may have the glint of gold.

The new plan, which moves the stadium from the downtown lakefront to Washington Park on the city’s South Side, strikes the proper balance between doing what is right for the Olympics and doing what is right for Chicago–two imperatives that have quietly been in conflict since Chicago’s plans began leaking onto the front pages this summer.

While the stadium’s price tag remains uncertain and it is not known where the private funds to build it will come from, the plan’s merits are clear:

With the Chicago Transit Authority’s Green Line running along the western edge of Washington Park, the Metra Electric line shooting through Hyde Park, and major highways like Lake Shore Drive and the Dan Ryan Expressway offering additional access, this stadium would be far easier to reach by public transit than its lakefront counterpart.

This stadium promises economic and urban redevelopment opportunities for the neighborhoods around Washington Park that a lakefront stadium did not. It could do for poor areas on the South Side, already seeing some redevelopment, what the 1996 Democratic National Convention did for the West Side: Provide a long-term shot in the arm that would outlast the event itself.

The plan also means that the downtown lakefront will not have a massive sports facility crammed between Soldier Field and McCormick Place, which would have walled off Chicago from its shoreline. Instead, that meadow in Washington Park offers all the room that’s needed to design a state-of-the-art sports venue, a factor that could help Chicago defeat San Francisco and Los Angeles in its bid to become the U.S. city that vies for the games.

To be sure, the city’s overall Olympic plan, due Friday at the U.S. Olympic Committee, has yet to be released to the public. But the stadium concept, prepared by Chicago architects Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, takes a major step toward solving the chief conundrum for Chicago: How to build a massive stadium that will excel during the Olympics and not become a white elephant afterwards.

Skidmore’s concept calls for the construction of an oval-shaped, 95,000-seat temporary stadium that would host both the opening and closing ceremonies as well as track and field events. The stadium would have at least two tiers of seats. The first would consist of an amphitheater-like bowl that would be hollowed about 25 feet into the ground. At the bottom of the bowl would be the track surface. Other tiers of seats would be built above ground, but would disappear after the games.

Left in place would be a 10,000-foot amphitheater that could be used for track and field and cultural events. The plan also promises to make a variety of improvements to Washington Park, which was designed in 1871 by Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux, the landscape architects whose masterwork is New York City’s Central Park.

At the press conference announcing the stadium plan, some asked whether the new plan would undermine the compactness that has been a major selling point of Chicago’s Olympic plans. But there’s a difference between moving the stadium to some far-flung suburb like Naperville and moving it to Washington Park–a short drive from the expected site of the Olympic Village south of McCormick Place and west of Lake Shore Drive.

The plan also appears sensitive to the landscape of Washington Park, a serene combination of meadows, ponds and lagoons with islands within them. Skidmore proposes, for example, to take a portion of a road that now splits the northern and southern halves of the park and bury it in a tunnel. This would allow pedestrians to cross easily from one side of the park to the other, separating car and pedestrian traffic in a way that wisely learns from Central Park.

True, having the stadium several miles from downtown will make for slightly less dramatic pictures of the skyline. But, as Wednesday’s press conference made plain, the downtown skyline is clearly, if somewhat distantly, visible from Washington Park. Besides, blimps and TV cameras at close-in Olympic venues will still deliver the jaw-dropping panoramic shots broadcasters crave.

As good as it is, though, the stadium concept can’t be viewed in isolation. Its merits (or failings) will only be fully apparent after the city’s leaders make public Chicago’s overall Olympic plan. So stay tuned: Chicago’s Olympic urban planning marathon isn’t over. It’s just begun.

———-

bkamin@tribune.com

Philip Hersh; Published September 4, 2006