Today’s Wisch List column from the Kankakee Daily Journal …

The Olympics are coming (I think) – is the future, too?

The WISCH LIST
Sept. 26, 2009

So, what will Chicago look like in 2016?

How about in 2116?

The former, of course, will have a great deal to do with whether or not the International Olympic Committee on Friday slips five rings on Chicago’s fingers and weds the Windy City to the 2016 Games.

The latter, meanwhile, probably depends on who your favorite science fiction filmmaker is.

And how much time you spent watching The Jetsons as a kid.

Olympic Games or no Olympic Games, though, I really have no idea what the Windy City will look like seven years from today, let alone a century from now. But thankfully, for our entertainment, a bunch of Chicago architects do.

And through Oct. 11, their visions of the city’s future – both near and distant – are on display at a captivating free exhibition entitled “Big. Bold. Visionary. Chicago Architects Consider the Next Century” hosted by Chicago’s Tourism Gallery, 72 E. Randolph St., and available online at www.burnhamplan100.org.

As part of a region-wide series of exhibits and events celebrating the centennial of Daniel Burnham and Edward Bennett’s influential Plan of Chicago, the exhibition provides more than three dozen local architecture firms an opportunity to make their voices heard at a time when, thanks to the city’s Olympics bid, Chicago again is pondering the face of its future.

In 1909, Burnham – the legendary architect and urban planner who famously said “Make no small plans; they have no magic to stir men’s blood” – and his partner, Bennett, laid out a 165-page Plan of Chicago that presented a comprehensive re-imagining of the entire region from Kenosha to DeKalb to Michigan City.

At the Tourism Gallery, that plan is lauded as “a vision for Chicago in the 20th century” that “established a precedent of dreaming big and thinking boldly that every generation of Chicagoans since has firmly embraced.”

Plenty of big dreams are indeed on display at the “Big. Bold. Visionary.” exhibition, which is organized into six categories: the lakefront, big plans, towers, catalysts, public appearance and transportation.

Some of the dreams are off the wall, such as architect Joe Valerio’s depiction of a 22nd-century Chicago in which the downtown is covered in a transparent blanket akin to a giant swath of Saran Wrap. Heat trapped beneath the skin would be exhausted through eight massive solar towers, with the rush of air powering a series of wind turbines.

Other ideas at the exhibition are less dark, but no less intriguing. They include an “Eco Bridge” envisioned by architects Adrian Smith and Gordon Gill that would extend as a two-mile breakwater into Monroe Harbor, creating on the lake “a grand new space, providing recreational opportunities and unparalleled views of the skyline from a central Eco-Tower.”

That’s a view of Chicago I’d like to experience. And last weekend at the Tourism Gallery, a silver-haired gentleman standing beside me agreed.

“This is so cool,” he said, referring to the entire exhibition. “Because some of this will happen … When you’re in a wheelchair, and I’m dead.”
Now, while that may be true for many of the exhibits, there are at least a few – in particular, those connected to a 2016 Chicago Olympics – that conceivably could happen while I’m still ambulatory and my silver-haired friend is, you know, still alive.

One such display called “Bend it like Burnham” envisions the lakefront of Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana and Michigan as the venue for the 2016 Olympics, while another imagines Chicago’s “New South Coast” and details a layout for an Olympic Village on the Near South Side.

By next Friday afternoon, we’ll know if such Olympic dreams have a chance of becoming a reality in Chicago. My gut tells me that they will. But if not, you can likely blame it on Rio, which I see as the only serious competition for Chicago in the race for the 2016 Games.

Here’s my thinking: With the 2008 Olympics having been held in Beijing and the 2012 Olympics set for London, the IOC won’t select Tokyo or Madrid. It’s too soon to return to Asia or Europe.

That leaves Chicago and Rio de Janeiro, which is viewed by many as the sentimental favorite because South America has never hosted a Summer Olympics.

I don’t doubt that Rio would be an excellent choice, but the city might be better suited for the 2020 Games. Keep in mind that Brazil already will be hosting the 2014 World Cup and that advertisers might be hesitant to pour money into another major sporting event in the same country just two years later.

By 2016, it also will have been 20 years since the United States last hosted a Summer Games (Atlanta ’96), and the U.S. likely is due.

In April 2007, I was at ESPN Zone in downtown Chicago when the Windy City was selected over Los Angeles as the U.S. candidate for 2016. That day, the crowd erupted as if the Cubs had finally won the World Series.

It was that loud.

My guess is that come Friday, Chicago will shout once again.

This week, in addition to my Wisch List column, I wrote a front-page news story for the Kankakee Daily Journal …

Chicago’s Olympic spirit running hot and cold

By Dave Wischnowsky
For the Daily Journal

CHICAGO — This past Sunday afternoon, the Magnificent Mile was teeming with both tourists toting their shopping bags and Bears fans touting their favorite team as they made their way toward Soldier Field.

But except for a few flags and bus stop ads promoting Chicago 2016, the buzz along Michigan Avenue regarding the city’s Olympics bid was at a low-key level less than two weeks shy of the International Olympic Committee’s selection of the 2016 host on Oct. 2.

“I had actually forgotten about [the Olympics announcement] until we got to the Chicagoland area,” admitted Sarah Conroy, 27, of Normal, who was in town with her husband for a friend’s wedding. “It wasn’t until we got to the hotel that I saw signs and thought about it.”

The attention paid to the Olympics in Chicago – and throughout Illinois – is expected to increase considerably this week. On Friday, the IOC will gather in Copenhagen to choose the 2016 host from among Rio de Janeiro, Tokyo, Madrid and Chicago.

The announcement, expected for between 11:30 and noon CDT, will be broadcast live in Chicago at Daley Plaza during a free pep rally that’s scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. Other viewing parties may be held in the suburbs, according to a spokeswoman for Chicago 2016, but details are not yet available.

Earlier this week, talk show diva Oprah Winfrey announced she will join Chicago’s official Olympics delegation in Denmark. First Lady Michelle Obama is also on board for Copenhagen, while President Barack Obama is said to be keeping his travel options open. And all week long, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley has spoken with increasing optimism that the city will emerge victorious in the Olympics race.

But, while Chicago’s celebrities and politicians may be enthusiastic about the 2016 Games, the question still remains: Are regular Chicagoans ready to embrace the Olympics, too?

The best answer might be both yes, and no.

“I think some people are still indecisive and not sure,” Nate Zaremba, 26, a resident of Chicago’s Lakeview neighborhood said on Wednesday. “Especially among younger people who aren’t really sure how it will affect them.”

Zaremba said he supports the Olympics bid in large part because he believes it will provide jobs in construction and other industries.

“My thoughts are that it will be a good thing for Chicago,” he said.

A recent Chicago Tribune poll, however, showed that since February support among city residents for Mayor Daley’s Olympics plans had dwindled from 61 to 47 percent and that economic questions are the critics’ chief concern.

“I think I would like to see the Olympics come to Chicago,” said Steve Martin, a 22-year veteran of the U.S. Postal Service and a city resident. “But, the cost, I guess that’s the big thing. I’m sure real estate taxes will go up. Almost every [Olympic host] city has cost overruns, and who’s going to be picking up the tab?”

Daley acknowledged the skeptics earlier this week, saying that there are “a lot of questions still being asked.” He also called his bid team’s plan “very, very fiscally responsible.”

In June, the mayor promised the IOC that city government would back its planned $4.8 billion games with an unlimited financial guarantee to cover losses.

The bid team plans to purchase $1.2 billion in insurance coverage against losses for running the games as well as push for private developers to line up as much as $4 billion worth of financial guarantees to protect against construction cost overruns on the proposed athletes’ village and sporting venues. According to the team, no Olympics in history has arranged for so many financial protections as Chicago has.

On Tuesday, prior to his departure for Copenhagen, Chicago 2016 spokesman and Bourbonnais native Pat Sandusky appeared on Fox Chicago’s morning show.

“We have a great plan that the Civic Federation, the [Chicago] City Council and even the IOC has said that is unlikely to have any risk to even tap into that insurance let alone beyond the insurance,” he said. “We’d have to be well over, north of $2 billion over budget to hit the taxpayer.”

Daley this week also trumpeted his belief that the Olympics will transform Chicago’s global reputation.

“You don’t realize the importance, the global importance that Chicago will receive,” he told reporters. “If you get this, it’s a major, major coup for the whole marketing strategy of Chicago.”

Sandusky declined on Tuesday morning to call Chicago a leader in the race, but did express optimism.

“I certainly don’t think it’s in the bag for any city,” he said. “This is a great race between four great cities. However, I think it’s natural going into final preparations to feel optimistic. I’m glad that the mayor does. I would think all mayors of all four cities would and should as they go into this …

“It’s going to be a sort of white knuckle ride before the end. We’ll all know Oct. 2.”

Today’s Wisch List column from the Kankakee Daily Journal …

Be like Mike? Let’s Cut(ler) the hype

The WISCH LIST

Sept. 19, 2009

When I was in high school, I owned a Nike T-shirt emblazoned with an image of Michael Jordan frozen in mid-jumper alongside the message: “He doesn’t live on Earth. He just shows up for practice and game days.”

Over the top?

Like one of MJ’s dunks.

But during the 1990s, that’s how it was with Jordan. The man was hype personified. Yet it never seemed over the top. Not really.

Reason being was that every challenge thrown Jordan’s way, he met. Every opponent, he overcame. And every barb tossed, he returned (including those saved for last week’s, ahem, highly spirited Hall of Fame induction speech).

On the basketball court, Michael Jordan could do anything, it seemed. Chicago loved his hype. I loved his hype. And with the bling of six NBA championship rings on his fingers, I understood every bit of where it came from.

This summer, however, I haven’t had that same understanding – not at all – regarding the adulation that’s been tossed at the feet of Chicago Bears quarterback Jay Cutler like so many rose petals.

Before he had even risen to any occasion at all.

For example, last week, prior to the Bears’ regular season opener at Green Bay, Chicago Tribune columnist David Haugh shared a story borne of the Cutlermania that descended upon Bourbonnais earlier this summer.

“Five minutes before the Bears’ first practice of training camp on the campus of Olivet Nazarene,” Haugh wrote, “a member of Jerry Angelo’s staff knocked on the door of the general manager’s makeshift office.

“ ‘It’s time to go see our greatest work ever,’ he excitedly told Angelo.”

That Bears staff member was referring, of course, to Cutler, “who is to Angelo,” Haugh wrote, “what the Sistine Chapel is to Michelangelo.

“His greatest work ever.”

Well, I’m sorry, but Jay Cutler isn’t the Sistine Chapel. Nor is he Michael Jordan in shoulder pads. Certainly not yet, at least. And no matter how much Chicago has seemed to want him to be.

Now, this isn’t to say that Cutler isn’t a talented quarterback (he is) or that trading for him wasn’t a good move (it was). Nor is it to say that the guy can’t lead the Bears to Super Bowl glory (he could).

But how about we ditch the audacity of hype surrounding Cutler and let him, you know, actually do that first?

Or, for that matter, do anything.

With the way the Legend of Jay Cutler has been spun around these parts since springtime, though, you would have thought the guy already had hoisted a Lombardi Trophy – or three – in Grant Park.

Heck, even sportswriters in Wisconsin were buying in.

“Cutler is definitely the one,” Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel columnist Tom Silverstein gushed last weekend. “[The Bears] thought so much of him that on April 3 they sent [quarterback Kyle] Orton, two first-round picks (in ‘09 and ’10) and a third-round pick to Denver for Cutler and a fifth-round selection …

“The way fans in the Windy City see it, Cutler’s arrival marks the end of a cycle of mediocrity at quarterback that has plagued this organization for two decades. When he drops back to pass for the first time Sunday, he will carry the tonnage of many broken dreams on his shoulders.”

It turned out instead that Cutler broke a few new ones as he reduced his myth to mere reality with a 43.2 passer rating, four interceptions and a heartbreaking 21-15 loss to the hated Packers.

Not unlike Rex Grossman before him, Cutler’s biggest strength might be that he thinks he can complete every pass. And his biggest weakness might be that he thinks he can complete every pass.

On Sunday, the swift transformation from a pre-game King Cutler to an in-game Rex Cutler prompted a post-game commenter to vent on a Chicago Sun-Times blog:

“Well, this is what happens when people run out and place a person on a THRONE before they do anything,” the fan wrote. “Now, I guess a lot of people have gotten their feelings hurt … Oh, well.

“Chicago should’ve reserved its opinion on him like Green Bay did with [quarterback Aaron] Rodgers and then formed an opinion. BUT, oh no, too many of you fell IN LOVE right from the start and didn’t step back to look at the big picture.”

I hardly expect that the big picture of Cutler will show that he’s Rex Grossman, Cade McNown or the cast of other QB clowns that Chicago has suffered through for so long.

But before we decide what Jay Cutler is, let’s let him first show us.

Last weekend, a blog named “Jay Cutler Superstar” at the Tribune-owned site ChicagoNow.com pointed out how Cutler is the 23rd Bears quarterback since Jim McMahon and that “Michael Jordan was 23. Is this fate or what?”

That was written tongue in cheek.

Which, in regards to Cutler, is where we should keep ours for the time being.

Leave the tongue-wagging to Michael.

Today’s Wisch List column from the Kankakee Daily Journal …

Feel our ‘Paign, Gov. Quinn

The WISCH LIST

Sept. 12, 2009

Come this afternoon, I’ll hop in my car, point it south and zip down Interstate 57 to Champaign to root on my Fighting Illini in their home football opener.

The trip will be my first to the University of Illinois campus since the school’s admissions scandal blew up earlier this summer, resulting in buckets of bad ink and exposing a leaky administration’s clout-stained dirty laundry.

In spite of the mess, campus will look the same, I’m sure.

There will be fans tailgating across from Memorial Stadium. There will be plenty of orange on Green Street. And just off the Quad, the stately Alma Mater statue will still be standing with its arms wide open above the engraved message: “To Thy Happy Children Of Tomorrow Those Of The Past Send Greetings.”

Although right now, sending warnings might be more apropos.

Nevertheless, do I still hail Alma Mater?

Hail, yeah.

But that doesn’t mean I’m very happy with her right now.

And I’m not the only one.

“The University of Illinois is a super place, and it’s sad to see what’s happened to it,” said Lou Liay, 72, of Champaign, who served as executive director of the University of Illinois Alumni Association from 1983 to 1998. “I don’t know when we’re going to recover from (the scandal). It’s hurt the reputation of the university. I don’t know that it will hurt the students coming in or the quality of the university as long as we keep good faculty, but it has hurt.”

To wit, last week a Chicago Tribune poll found that 4 out of 10 Illinois residents believe that revelations about powerful individuals influencing the U. of I. admissions process have harmed the school’s academic reputation.

That damage can be repaired in time, but only if the university truly cleans house, changes the way it conducts its administrative business and gives alumni more of a voice in the process. Unfortunately, however, I don’t feel confident those changes are being properly implemented.

On Thursday, the six new members of the board of trustees appointed by Gov. Pat Quinn met in Urbana for the first time to begin untangling the school from its self-made mess. It’s a task made trickier by the fact that two of the alleged admissions-scandal culprits remain as trustees.

Last month, Quinn sadly became the first to blink in a stare-down with sitting Trustees James Montgomery and Frances Carroll when he opted not to fire them after they ignored his repeated requests for their resignations. The governor claimed he didn’t want to subject the state to a lengthy legal battle, which the two had threatened to pursue.

To which, I would have said: Subject us.

Quinn then compounded the situation when he appointed Christopher Kennedy, president of Chicago’s Merchandise Mart Properties and son of the late Robert F. Kennedy, and Lawrence Oliver II, chief counsel in charge of internal investigations for Boeing Co., as U. of I. trustees.

Those moves prompted Tribune reader Terry Bush of Evanston to fire off a letter to the editor that read: “Gov. Pat Quinn’s appointment of new University of Illinois trustees is a fascinating revelation of priorities and style. He’s added a Kennedy and the chief counsel from one of Chicago’s largest corporations and campaign contributors. I am sure glad that clout is no longer a factor in the selection of U. of I. trustees.”

I too was disturbed that at a time when politics need to be removed from the university, Quinn inserted a trustee from an enormously political family. And beyond that, while Kennedy may be qualified to serve as a trustee for a university, the fact that he’s studied only at private schools (Boston College for undergrad and Northwestern for his MBA) doesn’t at all show me it should be for a public university.

Neither Kennedy nor Oliver – who earned degrees from Purdue and Michigan State – have any apparent ties to U. of I., a painful blow for those who would like to see Illinois alums as Illinois trustees.

“That just hurt,” Liay said. “They have to be political appointments. I mean, there are 250,000 U. of I. alumni in this state.”

Of the four other new trustees appointed by Quinn, as well as reappointed trustee Edward McMillan, each at least is an alumnus of a U. of I. campus. That’s good. But what needs to happen is for six of the nine trustees, at minimum, to be selected through elections so the board is not so beholden to the governor. With all nine trustees currently appointed, it’s far too susceptible to politics and pressure.

In April 2007, Illinois House Bill 3289, which provided for the U. of I. trustees to be an elected body, passed the House by a vote of 113-1, but then got hung up in the State Senate.

That bill needs to be revisited. Because control of the University of Illinois should be in the hands of its alumni and the people of Illinois, not in those of politicians too easily tempted by cookie jars.

Hail, no.

Today’s Wisch List column from the Kankakee Daily Journal …

Five rings, Two babies and One month to go

The WISCH LIST

Sept. 5, 2009

Pat Sandusky is in demand.

On Monday evening, while sitting at a Wrigleyville watering hole and having a beer with an old Pony League Baseball teammate (me), the lead spokesman for Chicago 2016 watches his Blackberry light up on the table in front of him.

An anchor from Fox Chicago is calling.

In just the past few hours, Sandusky has fielded calls from ABC7, WSCR and the Sun-Times, in addition to stopping by the Tribune Tower to meet with the Chicago Tribune’s editorial board.

Pretty soon, he’ll need to leave the bar so he can get back home. After all, his wife – and their newborn twins – are there, waiting for Dad.

Like I said, Pat Sandusky is in demand.

In less than a month on Oct. 2, the members of the International Olympic Committee and the bid teams from Chicago, Rio de Janeiro, Madrid and Tokyo – the four cities vying for the 2016 Olympics – will convene in Copenhagen, where we’ll finally learn who will host the world’s biggest sports spectacle seven summers from now.

As a key member of the Chicago 2016 delegation, the pages of the calendar are falling off at a rapid rate for Sandusky, a Bourbonnais native and 1993 graduate of Bishop McNamara High School.

Not that the hectic pace is really anything new, considering life has been quite the blur for Sandusky and his wife, Kate, since June 19 when their twins, Brendan and Jessica, were born.

Yet even in the midst of the madness inherent in juggling kids and a high-profile job, Sandusky said that becoming a first-time father – twice – has actually put him more at ease than ever before.

“It immediately puts things in perspective,” he explained about fatherhood to the second power. “I’m a pretty easygoing guy, but it’s made me even more easygoing with the perspective it gives you. It’s actually been the total opposite of stressing me out.”

That doesn’t mean, however, that Sandusky is relaxed.

“I’ve been to London more often lately than I’ve been to Bourbonnais,” he said with a chuckle. “When a random flight attendant at Heathrow (Airport in London) recognizes you, you know you’re traveling too much.”

In just the past few weeks, Sandusky has flown to England, Italy, Germany and Denmark. He’s missed his wedding anniversary (and surely made up for it), has watched Usain Bolt sprint (in Berlin) and Michael Phelps swim (in Rome). He’s piled up gobs of frequent flier miles and also packed on a pound, maybe two.

“One thing I’ve had to sacrifice right now,” Sandusky said wryly, “is going to the gym.”

He’ll get a workout over the next 25 days, though, as Chicago 2016 attempts to tie up its loose ends in preparation for the big day in Copenhagen. Sandusky and the city’s delegation know there’s still work to be done, as indicated on Wednesday when the IOC released a report sizing up Chicago’s chances of landing the 2016 Games.

While the feedback was favorable overall, the IOC did express concerns about Chicago’s transportation issues, how the city will divvy up management responsibilities and, most significantly, who exactly is on the hook for the Olympics’ tab.

The latter is an issue of concern for many Chicagoans, as well, according to the results of a Tribune/WGN poll released on Thursday. The survey, which polled 380 city residents, indicated that support over whether Chicago should host the Games has declined since February, when the approval rate was 61 percent.

The latest poll found that 45 percent of city residents now oppose Mayor Richard Daley’s Olympic plans, while 47 percent are in support. It also was reported that 84 percent of city residents oppose using tax dollars to cover any financial shortfalls for the Games.

However, in an editorial also published Thursday, the Chicago Tribune noted that, “The organizers of Chicago’s bid for the Olympic Games have made significant moves in recent days to assure the city that their operations will be transparent and that they will carefully manage the financial risks. We, too, have more confidence than we had a few weeks ago that taxpayers will be protected.”

Sandusky acknowledged the criticisms directed by some towards a Chicago Games, but believes the plusses outweigh them.

“From a personal standpoint, it’s been amazing to be a part of something that – if we win – will be an altering event for the City of Chicago,” Sandusky said. “More than anything since the turn of the (20th) Century, it will change the face of Chicago for the future. And to be part of that would be an amazing thing. It’s also why everyone (with Chicago 2016) is so committed.”

And as for whether the stork will be bringing five Olympic rings to the Windy City like it brought two babies to the Sandusky household?

“I think we’re in a great position,” Sandusky said. “There are a lot of great cities in the race, but I think we’re going to be in a position to win it when we make our final presentation in Copenhagen.”