I think good.

I just heard an NPR report this morning on U.K. residents who lost their beloved allotments (neighborhood gardens) to make way for the 2012 Olympic site. Beware the behemoth that is the Olympics!

It's a crappy idea, it looks like my neighbohood (Oakland, Kenwood, Bronzeville) would be a casualty and we have some of the best architecture in the city. I'm attached to this neighborhood for it's beauty and sentimental reasons. I'm the third generation in my family to live here! Even if it were in another neighborhood, I'm not OK with the idea of destroying a neighborhood in the name of $$$ and sports.

Sure, it sounds good in theory, but where does the city expect to get the money for all the necessary infrastructure upgrades, not to mention the bucks to build all the venues? More property taxes? In that case, I would vote NO WAY.

I lived in Atlanta beginning about a year before the Olympics there and saw how it improved aspects of the city like the airport and mass transit. It also created oportunities to redevelop blighted areas of town. It's certainly not a cure-all for a city's problems -- it did little to bring life to downtown Atlanta once the games left -- but it provides incentives and money for public works that need improvement, those dollars create an economic boom in the area, and hosting the ames provides an energizing boost to a a city and its citizens. If you're worried about traffic, etc. then take a couple weeks off and go on vacation.

My understanding is that the current plan involves building over Washington Park. I would absolutely be devastated if Chicago lost that greenspace.

Would it bring about the circle line? Then I'm in.

I guess I don't know enough about the plans for how they will finance it and what they will tear down/build over. I'm afraid of even higher taxes and a strain on daily life of residents leading up to and during the games (maybe I'd just leave the city during that time).

I've taken an up-close look at some of the plans, and I think it's a really good idea. At least originally, the stadium in Washington Park was intended to be a temporary structure that would be removed afterwards. And a lot of money comes from sources like the Olympic committees, etc. I actually would be willing to put up with higher taxes, though, if it would get some infrastructure improvements to actually happen. Traffic would be nuts for a few weeks, but anyone with a nice condo who wants to get away could probably arrange a great house swap with someone from abroad.

It depends on how it's handled. It can impel city governments to build expensive projects -- transit lines and other services -- but it can also displace and disrupt stable areas and result in massive amounts of debt.

The 76 Olympics practically bankrupted Montreal.

"but anyone with a nice condo who wants to get away could probably arrange a great house swap with someone from abroad."

And everyone else can just suck it? What about the millions of poorer residents in Chicago? Why should they have to put up with this? And I'm absolutely appalled if they want to take away an entire park for the Olympics.

The Citizens of London were told it would cost them nothing, no taxes would be used on the games, and, well, lo and behold, lots of things had to be cut to pay for the Olympics. I'm dreading what will happen here.

Not to mention losing the Michael Reese campus instead of building over the tracks as in the rendering above. And of course, it was hasten displacement from Lake Meadows which in itself created massive displacement to built (for those of you who may not know, the projects along the Dan Ryan were built as replacement housing for the people who were displaced from the Lake Meadows and Prairie Shores parcels).

all i can think of is our crappy transportation, which IS being upgraded because of the Olympic bid, and ALL those people. Where would you park? It would be a nightmare. I also don't really think that most of the money made off of it would go back into the city to improve it for residents.

If you're a Chicagoan who rents, buy now is all I advise. Since Vancouver won the Olympics bid, housing has become absurdly out of reach for normal people here. I'd almost want to laugh if I weren't so busy crying. But hey, at least the developers are getting rich!

i ABSOLUTELY DO NOT wish the olympics to be held in chicago! the bid is a selfish vanity project for politicians and developers. we've got more than enough sports, trade shows and facilities, and special events (lollapalooza, taste of chicago, blues fest,...) and tourists NOW, which make getting around town an absolute olympiad as is.

chicago needs better transportation, not more traffic and congestion. we need every inch of our green space, not more paved sports arenas.

the olympics would be a colossal waste of resources, and very disruptive to neighborhoods and residents.

if the city would take care of local infrastructure needs instead of continually pandering to visitors for quick dollars, maybe i would feel more hospitable. and what about the morning after?

pave over a park? OUTRAGEOUS.

olympics in chicago? don't need it! don't want it! adamantly NO, thanks!

in the spirit of compromise, i'd accept the olympics IF immediately afterward they'd put everything back as they found it, including the trees and parks and homes,....and give the city and those impacted a nice stipend for our trouble....like a movie production company renting a property for their film shoot and restoring it upon completion of the shoot, like it never happened!