There have been some recent setbacks to Chicago’s plans for the 2016 Olympics. We’ve seen the questionable acquisition of the Michael Reese Hospital site as well as the lingering unknowns from the national financial implosion. Now is the time to look at the Chicago plan to see what other potential flaws there are within it.

While so many people are eager to see the 2016 Olympics in Chicago for many reasons, many forget that the platform for this type of venue has to be solid at all levels.

Sure, there are many benefits that have been touted by pro-Olympic cheerleaders, but what can we build that can be a lasting legacy to the people of the Chicago area for decades to come? What will be used up in a relative instant like expensive fireworks on the Fourth of July?

Benefits that are listed in the city’s top 16 reasons seem to fall short in the eyes of many pragmatic Chicagoans. With all the money earmarked to build housing and various transportation infrastructure, what really remains as a permanent asset for Chicago?

All developments for the Chicago Olympics that can find a permanent position within the fabric of the infrastructure create more of a win-win situation for this costly undertaking.

This is a common question that’s becoming more resonant: “There are many infrastructure projects that can be planned and implemented for the Olympics, but which of these will have some lasting value long after the games are done?”

1. A new runway to accommodate increased traffic at O’Hare? Yes.
2. The proposed Olympic village (which is claimed to be able to be reused as mixed-use housing)? Yes.
3. A new rail line that transports volumes of people to an Olympic city and stadium but afterward doesn’t have much usage? No.

The infrastructure has several more layers than what most people discuss when it comes to adding new infrastructure to compete for the Olympics. I haven’t seen a detailed plan that addresses every layer of Chicago’s infrastructure. Infrastructure doesn’t stop at roads and bridges or even railway systems. See the chart below.

Mass Transit: A Chicago Oxymoron?

Pieces of the CTA have been around for more than a century. Its routes are pretty much defined and permanent. Questions about moving large volumes of people for the Olympics, though, are being pondered:

1. Will a temporary and new CTA line be all that’s needed to address the traffic dynamics of the Olympics? Will it be more of a large permanent redesign that includes several new routes that will be reusable after the Olympics?
2. What about just adding a fleet of buses?
3. What roads and bridges will be needed to offload all the new traffic?

While these are all valid questions, this is where most people stop when they talk about the needs to upgrade infrastructure.

Too many planners and Chicago cheerleaders think of infrastructure as roads, bridges and railroads. From a typical approach, they might look at transporting a lot of people around. This would require some type of assessment like this:

In planning the Olympics venue, a total assessment of what is in place, what needs to be upgraded permanently (“P”) and what needs to be augmented (“A”) just for that event would need to be performed. A matrix like this might be created:

How many billions of dollars are going to be earmarked for this area in order to make sure reporters and as well as the average Olympic visitor all have true global connectivity when they come here? What we don’t want is for someone to come here and then go back with the impression that Chicago was nice but “my Butterfly-like device didn’t work while I was there”.

Walking away with a negative image like that will torpedo any glitzy, multimillion-dollar PR approach that emphasizes all the feel-good things about Chicago while overlooking the real roots of Chicago as “the city that works”.

Carlinism:   For any economic development to flourish to its maximum potential, each layer of supporting infrastructure must work.