American athletes and media members will gather in Chicago this week for a summit in anticipation of the 2010 Winter Olympic Games in Vancouver, but the Windy City’s bid for the 2016 Summer Games likely will be another topic of discussion.
On Oct. 2, the International Olympic Committee will award the games to either Chicago, Tokyo, Madrid or Rio de Janeiro. Trying to predict the IOC’s decision is challenging; board members are notoriously general in their praise and criticism. Last week, the IOC released lengthy technical evaluations of each bid based on visits in March and April, but the reports gave no indication of how the organization will rule.
Chicago’s proposed budget for the games, $3.8 billion, is about $1 billion more than any other city’s, and the IOC proclaimed it “ambitious but achievable.” Chicago likely would garner more worldwide sponsorship support than competing cities, but the IOC could be wary of such a large budget given the recent struggles of Vancouver to close a funding gap as the economy dipped.
In evaluating bids, the IOC had asked for financial guarantees from the city or federal governments to cover any cost overruns. Until this week, Chicago had been the only city that was unable to offer an open-ended guarantee, instead promising $750 million from the city and the state of Illinois.
On Tuesday, a City Council committee approved a measure that would let Chicago make an unlimited guarantee. The measure likely will appease some IOC members, but that could be offset by residents who would be unhappy with holding the bag if preparations for the games are financially mismanaged.
According to a poll by the Chicago Tribune, 84 percent of Chicago residents opposed the use of public money to cover financial shortfalls. Support of the bid was split, with 47 percent approving it and 45 percent against it. An IOC poll in February showed 67 percent of people in Chicago favor the Olympic bid, higher than in Tokyo but considerably lower than in Rio de Janeiro and Madrid.
Chicago’s proposal calls for a compact venue plan with 22 competition sites located within a five-mile radius of the city center. Many of the major venues, including Olympic Stadium, would be temporary structures, a sharp contrast with last year’s Beijing Games, which featured several state-of-the-art competition sites.
It is unclear what effect temporary venues will have on Chicago’s chances. Such structures may not match the aesthetic or functional quality of new venues. But the lack of permanent new structures would help avoid the issue of how the venues would be used in the future.
The IOC’s technical evaluations made no mention of President Obama’s support of Chicago’s bid.
Each of the cities competing with Chicago offers a compelling story. Rio de Janeiro would be the first South American city to host the Olympics. Madrid’s bid offers a compelling legacy plan involving sports, culture and the environment; it would be popular among those who recall the highly successful 1992 Barcelona Games. Tokyo is expected to use the games as part of a massive revitalization of its urban core.
Gamesbids.com, which maintains a stock market-style index to analyze the chances of a bid’s success, has consistently rated Chicago fourth, with Tokyo in the lead. Though the site has not always predicted the winner, no city rated lower than second has prevailed since the site began tracking bids in 2001.
• Tim Lemke can be reached at tlemke@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.