Chicago spirit steals show

Peter Ueberroth tore open the white, business-sized envelope and silently read the slip of paper it contained.

His eyebrows rose a fraction of an inch. Probably without realizing it, he glanced twice to his left.

Leaders of the group that had hoped to secure the 2016 Summer Olympics for Los Angeles were seated to his right.

They knew they weren’t about to get good news.

Their Chicago counterparts, assembled on the opposite side of a Washington hotel ballroom, erupted in cheers and hugs moments later when Ueberroth confirmed that the U.S. Olympic Committee had chosen Chicago as its nominee to stage the Games and the Paralympics. It was a cheeky victory by a would-be Olympic rookie over a city that had twice saved the Games and forever changed them, for better or for worse.

It was a stunning blow that the Los Angeles group, which had all of its finances and nearly all of its buildings in place, was snubbed in favor of a plan that requires massive construction. With the need to build venues and Olympic villages comes the risk of overruns and delays, both of which could embarrass the USOC and compromise the Games’ look and feel.

The Los Angeles plan had enough flaws -- or enough staleness as a potential third-time host that would have reused venues from 1932 and 1984 and would not have built a new athletes’ village -- for the USOC on Saturday to embrace the huge gamble inherent in Chicago’s proposal.

And to put that proposal out for international scrutiny in a race that’s likely to include Tokyo, Rio de Janeiro, Madrid, Rome and Prague.

The International Olympic Committee, no great fan of the United States except when it comes to the television and sponsorship money it generates, will make its final decision in October 2009.

“I don’t think there was a weak point,” Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said, bristling at the suggestion that his city’s plan had fallen short anywhere.

“These were two great presentations, two great cities.... Somebody had to win here. And Chicago did.”

Ueberroth, chairman of the USOC’s board of directors, said the vote had been “very, very close,” but that was bookkeeping. It was irrelevant.

This Los Angeles bid was far superior to its plan for the 2012 Games, and it got a step further than the first-round elimination it suffered in the 2012 domestic race. This bid had broader civic involvement, stronger financial underpinning and an actively involved, Spanish-speaking mayor who gave life to the bromides about the Olympics being built on inclusion.

It wasn’t wanting in numbers. It was lacking in spirit, devoid of the innovation, enthusiasm and imagination for which Los Angeles was famous.

One after another, USOC officials spoke Saturday of Chicago’s magical visions for the Games. They praised the city’s attractive lakefront and planned celebration plaza, its eagerness to welcome the world to a compact and vibrant downtown, and its ambitious plans to leave a legacy in the hearts of citizens and visitors.

They said nothing of the sort about Los Angeles.

“What’s magical about the Chicago bid is certainly it parallels the magic that can be created within the Olympic movement and within the Olympic Games,” said Jim Scherr, chief executive officer of the USOC.

“There’s a certain spirit to Chicago and the people that live there, and we believe that that spirit, the city itself and the opportunity for the venue that the city provides for the Olympic Games, can create a unique kind of magic.”

Wasn’t Los Angeles once the magic capital of the world?

Didn’t its TV and movie studios pump out fantasies every day, and its sunshine and green hills lure migrants to its farms, beaches and cities in search of new beginnings?

Los Angeles long ago lost a significant chunk of its movie and TV industry to Vancouver and other places where labor is cheaper. The USOC’s decision seems to say that the city’s magic has left town too, seeking its luck along the shores of Lake Michigan and amid the snarls of the Dan Ryan and Edens expressways.

Scherr said the USOC voters felt a fervor from Los Angeles bid leaders, “but I think there was a passion from Chicago, an exuberance of there being a first-time opportunity to host the Olympic Games, which was different.

“Both were passionate. Chicago’s was different.”

Different, in this case, being more inspiring and exhilarating.

Tim Leiweke, head of AEG and an active partner in the Los Angeles 2016 effort, praised Chicago’s business community and its political leadership for backing that city’s bid.

“I think they came up with a really creative and energetic way to put the facilities down on the lakefront and use that lakefront,” Leiweke said. “It’s a marvelous area, a great town. There’s nothing like the Loop. You can’t recreate that.

“I fully understand why that captured their imagination, and I think it will capture the imagination of the rest of the world, and good for them.”

And bad for Los Angeles.

Casey Wasserman, the token younger-than-middle-aged guy on the L.A. bid committee, believed there was nothing to be gained from comparing the two plans.

“As far as hosting Olympics goes, these are two completely different bids,” he said. “One is about building facilities, one was about fulfilling dreams for athletes and leaving a tremendous legacy. The voters voted and they’re entitled to their vote and they’re just different perspectives.

“We can’t be what they are, and they can’t be what we are.”

Nor did he want to know where Los Angeles fell short in the USOC’s eyes.

“They clearly think Chicago is a better presenter in the world today than L.A.,” he said.

“I think L.A. could have won the international bid.”

But it won’t get the chance to try. Ueberroth, czar of the wildly successful 1984 Los Angeles Games, seemed wistful about that. But he praised Chicago for feats big and little, including featuring its plans for the Paralympics for disabled athletes. Chicago, in essence, had the heart that Los Angeles lacked.

“You’re newcomers to the Olympic movement,” Ueberroth said, “but that was respected by the people that voted for you and the people that didn’t vote for you.”

Chicago, as an Olympic rookie, knew enough to do that. Los Angeles didn’t. It should have.

“For the Olympic Games to be a success, we have to recreate a certain magic,” said Bob Ctvrtlik, the USOC’s vice president for international affairs. Chicago, he said, “could do that.”

Los Angeles, at least for the time being, has lost its magic touch.

--

Helene Elliott can be reached at helene.elliott@latimes.com. To read previous columns by Elliott, go to latimes.com/elliott.

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

Future sites

Key dates and facts about upcoming Olympic Games:

BEIJING

SUMMER 2008

KEY FACTS

* Opening date: Aug. 8

* Closing date: Aug. 24

* Country of the host city:

People’s Republic of China

* Candidate cities: Istanbul, Turkey; Osaka, Japan; Paris and Toronto

* Official website:

beijing2008.com

--

VANCOUVER

WINTER 2010

KEY FACTS

* Opening date: Feb. 12

* Closing date: Feb. 28

* Country of the host city:

Canada

* Candidate cities: Pyeongchang, South Korea and Salzburg, Austria

* Official website:

vancouver2010.com

--

LONDON

SUMMER 2012

KEY FACTS

* Opening date: July 27

* Closing date: Aug. 12

* Country of the host city: Britain

* Candidate cities: Paris, Madrid, Moscow and New York

* Official website: london2012.org

--

Source: olympic.org

Los Angeles Times