Games Monitor

Skip to main content.

Professionals leave it late to oppose Chicago Bid

Where were they when it mattered? NoGamesChicago has a couple of neat little stories about those who become wise after the event. First, there was the American Planning Association whose magazine, in February 2010, discovered “Unfortunately, hosting the Games gets no medals as an urban development strategy. Host efforts tend to be over promised and underfunded, and seldom achieve the goals local organizers set out.”

NGC asks 'Where were they when the bid was being proposed and marketed to the citizens of Chicago and the rest of Illinois?'

Then there was Frank Deford, senior contributing writer for Sports Illustrated, who, in June of this year, commented “…as Vancouver goes about the nasty business of trying to pay off this winter’s Olympics, and as we approach the World Cup and South Africa sees its bill soar toward $5 billion, it’s worth reminding cities and countries that think they can be the apple of the world’s eye just by hosting a sports spectacular, that there are only two words you can be guaranteed will always highlight every Olympics and every World Cup nowadays, and those are: over budget.”

NGC plaintively cries out 'Frank, we could’ve used your voice last year.'

When it comes to being 'the apple of the world's eye' NGC also points out that Patrick Sandusky, Chief Spokesman for Chicago 2016, still wants to claim exactly that success for the 2016 Bid by insisting Chicago got 'global scale' marketing exposure out of the venture.

It's that 'world city' thing again!

| | | |