Bringing Chicago to the world Posted on April 30th
Professor Allen Sanderson’s “Consider the options; Chicago could make a better investment than Olympics 2016” (Commentary, April 22) acknowledged that “it would be lovely for this magnificent city to have its chance to be on the world stage . . . “
But he then concentrated his analysis only on the costs of organizing and hosting the Olympic Games. A balanced perspective would examine benefits as well as costs.
First, let’s look at costs. There are many ways to tally costs relating to hosting the Olympics, depending on the point you are trying to make. For example, infrastructure improvements to the CTA are much needed and long overdue. Accelerating these investments will help win the right to host the Olympic Games. Should that be considered a “cost” of the games? I see the acceleration of needed CTA investments as a benefit, not a cost.
What about benefits? Like the 1893 Columbian Exposition and the 1933-34 Century of Progress World’s Fair, the 2016 Olympic Games would show our great city to the world. We know that misperceptions of Chicago persist; images of slaughterhouses and gangsters are still too common.
Trackback URL