Let the war begin

Just months from a vote, the stakes are high as both cities fight for multimillions in revenue and worldwide honors

One city vying for the Olympics touted its existing venues, arguing re-do and re-use. Its international reputation was decidedly sexy. The other offered grand new building plans and touted an experience it claimed would be unique to an Olympics.

No, not L.A. vs. Chicago for the right to host the 2016 summer games.

It was Paris vs. London for the games of 2012.

That racket coming out of England these days is construction as London sets up its party.

When it comes to the folks who choose the sites for the Olympics, "new sells,'' said Rob Livingstone, publisher of the online Olympics-focused site, gamesbids.com.

"Chicago seems the way to go,'' said Livingstone. It's one man's opinion, though an educated one, as Livingstone has covered Olympic bid efforts for almost 20 years. And there are other positive signs as well.

An informal survey of about 22 members of the 115-member International Olympic Committee by NBCSports.com in November found Chicago to have an edge. "A lot of members are saying Chicago is very good,'' one official told NBC. "They're saying it's a typical American city." Added another: "Chicago, 100 percent.''

Local officials here hope the early breezes blowing the Windy City's way signal a perfect storm. In this hard-fought contest, the prize is not only millions of dollars in potential revenue but a global television audience of billions to sell Chicago for tourism and business.

Outside observers caution that the bid books, submitted last week to the United States Olympic Committee, which will select an American city in April to represent the country in a worldwide contt, are secret. And what's on the minds of the 11 U.S. members and the hundred-plus international voters is a great unknown.

But in the game to win the games, Big Shoulders vs. SoCal, Chicago is solidly in the hunt, experts say.

Chicago's bid trumpets compactness, a games celebrated at closely spaced venues near the lakefront where athletes easily stroll from housing to the competitions.

Wait a minute, says Los Angeles.

"After a certain point you have to consider, when it comes to compactness, that you don't want too close or you encourage congestion,'' said Barry Sanders, chairman of the Southern California Committee for the Olympic Games.

L.A.'s venues may be farther apart, but they've got the glitz.

"The excitement of Hollywood and the media center that is L.A. is only good for the Olympic movement,'' argued Sanders, who speaks of the "glamor of an event that happens in this environment.''

Hold on there, says Chicago.

"I don't think it's a determinant,'' said Patrick Ryan, a Chicago insurance exec who heads Chicago's bid effort. "I think [the voters] are people who are very interested in sports and the Olympic ideals.''

The bid books are chock full of data on who, what, when and where and, most important, how much.

Forbidden from directly lobbying the USOC, the next crack for Chicago and Los Angeles will come in late February and early March, when an evaluation committee visits each city. On April 14, the cities get a last shot with a presentation before the vote, which will choose L.A. or Chicago to fight it out on the international arena against cities expected to include Rio de Janiero, Brazil; Tokyo, and Madrid, Spain.

Chicago is touting a compact games anchored by a new, though temporary, stadium in Washington Park, a new swimming venue at the University of Illinois-Chicago and a new Olympic Village near McCormick Place.

The USOC is trying to pick the city it best thinks can win on the international level. Experts who follow the Olympics say the voters on the international panel want their cake and to eat it, too.

Publicly, they want guarantees that the games will not drown in red ink and cost overruns -- a situation already straining London's efforts to host the games in 2012. Furthermore, "the IOC does not want cities to build white elephants. They do not want to leave empty venues behind,'' said Mike Moran, who worked as a press spokesman for the USOC from 1988 to 2003.

Yet they also are impressed with "the new,'' said Livingstone. Part of it is that the Olympics want to leave a legacy -- something that remains and cements the Olympics in the public's mind. Plus, "they're people, too -- they like to be impressed.''

Moran said U.S. Olympic officials see international reputation as key to a successful bid. "New York has marvelously rich ethnic neighborhoods, dozens of ethnic newspapers. The same could be said for Chicago,'' Moran said.

Los Angeles does have Hollywood but, said Moran, "How valuable is the Michael Jordan connection, who was also a great Olympian?"

On the other hand, Los Angeles hosted successful games in 1984, presenting "the model on how to do it, with corporate business support.''

When it comes to Los Angeles, which also hosted the Olympics in 1932, there could be a "been there-done that" attitude internationally that could influence the USOC's choice, some said.

aherrmann@suntimes.com