Then I heard it's not what you make, but how much you spent

This Friday marks the day that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) will announce its host city for the 2016 Summer Olympic Games. In the Windy City, this day looms with much anticipation, as Chicago has been vying for the position against Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Madrid, Spain; and Tokyo, Japan for more than two years.

The eagerness surrounding the impending vote is not shared by all, however. For instance, President Obama's decision to visit Denmark to back the bid has been criticized as a frivolous distraction from more urgent domestic issues. In addition to the disapproval expressed on the national scale, there has also been a local tide of opposition to the games in Chicago for a multitude of reasons.

During the summer, the Evaluation Commission from the IOC spent four days in each candidate city compiling a report on each of the cities' bids. When the report was published in early September, Chicago was identified as lacking a "full [financial] guarantee," which could potentially result in losses for the Olympic committee. The report ultimately declared that the city's Olympic budget of 3.8 billion dollars was, "ambitious but achievable".

Many residents of the Second City have expressed their resistance to the bid for these very same financial reasons. Individuals and groups, like No Games Chicago, question how the city will cope with an influx of Olympic-directed funds when budget issues already plague Illinois and its capital. According to a compilation of news sources, there already exist inordinate deficits within the local and state administration, Chicago Transit Authority, and Chicago Public School System. Citizens ask, why should we devote billions of dollars to a transitory sporting event seven years in the future when so many of our local services are in dire need of assistance now?

In addition to the fiscal arguments, many contend that the Olympic Games in Chicago will displace residents adjacent to Olympic sites and that the present plans lack sustainability beyond the end of the Games.

While these claims carry significant weight and validity, the plans as presented in the IOC's evaluation of the four cities' bids seem to convey a different story.

According to the IOC's report, the Olympic Village—one of the structures that will be newly built—is planned to have 16,800 beds in a series of 21 residential buildings. Intended to house the Olympic and Paralympic athletes for the duration of the games, the Olympic Village will be converted to mixed-income housing afterwards, with "at least 20% of the residences [allocated to] senior citizens & students" as affordable housing. In light of these plans, it ostensibly appears that Chicago is committed to reusing some Olympic facilities.

Another issue that has raised eyebrows in the community is the degree of sustainability of the games. The present plans for the games, however, make use of many existing sports and convention venues around Chicago. For example, the McCormick Place convention facility—the largest of its kind in North America—is expected to serve as the location for 11 Olympic sports and 8 Paralympic sports. Out of the 31 total venues needed for the games, 15 of them already exist, 6 will need to be built but will remain permanently thereafter, while 9 will be temporary. These six structures, many of which will be park-side, will become a part of World Sport Chicago and the Urban Youth Sport Initiative, a collaborative effort with the Chicago Parks Department to foster sports participation among Chicago youth.

Although the report from the IOC lends a more substantive perspective of Chicago's proposals, the fact remains that many areas of the city will require extensive work that will necessitate large sums of money. As the Chicago Tribune reported two weeks ago, taxpayer funds are likely to support much of the construction efforts for the Games, despite Mayor Daley's promise that they will be primarily privately-funded. Below is a chart highlighting the expenses that the city will face, if given the opportunity to host the Olympics.


Photo credit to the Chicago Tribune
It should be noted, though, that many of these expenses are focused on public works projects that will improve the quality of life for the Chicagoland community, such as roadway improvements and enhanced city services. Additionally, the city's infrastructure and transport systems are likely to receive facelifts under Chicago's bid, such as the $8.3 billion renovation of O'Hare International Airport intended to increase the number of runways and gates. One advantage to these construction efforts is that we are likely to reap the benefits long after the Games have passed.

Although many valid points have been raised by those advocating and opposing Chicago's bid, the fate of the 2016 Olympic Games now rests in the hands of those in Copenhagen. As we await Friday's vote, I trust that the chosen host city will do its best to accommodate both residents and recreation.