2016 Olympic Decision (Chicago, Bush, Rio: cost, stadiums, expense)

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by renault

Compared to Chicago, yes Rio is ready for it. They wanted it more than any of the other candidates. The IOC made the right decision.

Of course they wanted it more. But that alone does not prove they will be able to come through with their promises for the games. They pretty much failed in what they promised for the Pan Am games.

[pirate_lafitte]

The Olympics were held in Atlanta and it was a nightmare. Atlanta wasn't ready for it, but strangely they were held anyway. In many ways, Chicago is more equipped to have the Olympics than Atlanta was. Chicago has a better mass transit system than Atlanta. It is next to the water so the aquatic events can be held right there. It is large metro, but are many places nearby for the venues. Atlanta is extremely spread out. MARTA was and still is a joke. Two small reservoirs nowhere near mass transit created alot of traffic problems. Chicago is better equipped than Atlanta was(or still is).

[edsg25]

What a shame that vetting is a one way procedure. The IOC looks up the as*hol*s of every qualifying city, each of which pays a small fortune just for the honor of being one of the final four. They have to shmooze and coo and put on a dog and pony show before they even get to spread those cheeks and have their carrie prejain moment in the syncronised swim suit competition.

But who the hell vets the IOC? Why don't these cities get to put it under the microscope? I thought Chicago was a sure bet. I was wrong and perhaps cocky in my thinking. I certainly didn't give Rio its due and it is worthy of what I failed, in the heat of competition, to grant them.

So a nose to nose Chgo-Rio competion that ended at the finish line with the Brazilians on top, I could have accepted. Chicago out on the first round? WTF was that? Am I seriously to believe that Chicago's bid was the worst or that the city's offerings to the Olympics came in last of the 4 competitors? Is it absurd that Europe and Asia, so close to Olympics prior to 2016, should have outlasted the US and N America?

Chicago did not lose the 2016 Olympics. If it had, I would be big enough to say so and wish the winner well. In fact, I do wish Rio well. But this wasn't Chicago's loss. It was the US that was eliminated in round one, not the Windy City. It was payback for America from members across the globe. Bagdad's invassion was Chicago's defeat. Throw in the world economic crisis that became earlier but became obvious in 2008, as well. Blame a GWB administration that basically said F you to the word for giving Chicago an F you back.

And while IMHO, the world's attitudes towards the US are legitimate, I don't find an Olympic process that is rigged against Chicago from the start through no fault of our own warranting this expensive PR job for our city in the first place. If we are pirahhas, fine, just let us know we are pirahhas and don't subject us to the crap that took place in Copenhagen where clearly our bid and its merits played little part in the selection process.

In the last two IOC circuses, both the Big Apple and the Windy City never had a chance, not due to the greatness of each and their ability to put on a great show, but for one simple reason:

Both New York and Chicago are geographically undesirable because they live with their Uncle Sam.

[edsg25]

Rant, part 2

I was supportive of Chicago's bid. I would have been happy if it won. There are no sour grapes here for me, but there is an awareness that with my support (as with others) came down sides and down sides are always there. So, in effect, there was a certain amount of win/win in this for me for losing had its own pay offs.

For example: this Olympics unlike others across the globe and unlike world fairs that Chicago held and the plans for one that it aborted on its own left significant infrastructure changes to the city. Construction in both instances left their cities and ours with permanent improvements to the urban landscape. This Olympics had no such grand plans with tear down stadiums and an Olympic village on prime south lakefront land that will, if and when the economy improves, generate plenty of dividends on its own. A city like Detroit would kill to have a piece of property like Michael Reese Hospital that sells itself when it can't even give away a piece of land for redevelopment.

Second, Olympics usually do pay for themselves and in normal circumstances the risks are legitimate due to the pay off. But these are not normal circumstances. I don't know about the rest of you and I will be the first to admit that my thinking here is a bit off center on how I measure the gravity of the situation. But, to me, 2008-09 is no recession and resembles the D word far too close for comfort. My thinking also points me to a scary reality where I realize that we are now in a fundamental change in eras, the true end of the post-WWII times and that both the US role on the world stage and the economic health of the world itself are in flux. I won't carry this global picture further than I have to. Suffice it to say that I believe that many of the global and national problems of today will intensify and that I am highly skeptical of discretionary global ( or even national) travel to events like the Olympics. Rio may well find its investment in 2016 as ill advised in this era as New York bringing Yankee Stadium and Yankee amenities and Yankee prices on line on the very year that the gravy train is shutting down or Royal Carribean issuing the Oasis of the Seas, the world's largest cruise ship which is a luxury city at sea on every count this December with thoughts of how in the heck are they ever going to fill it.

I'm sorry Chicago lost. Frankly I wouldn't have written the above if we had won for those are realities I would have put out of my mind. But we did lose. And the if's are big. I'm hoping Rio does well, but I can't help but feel forces beyond their control will hurt.

[BRAZILIAN]

[IMG]file:///D:/Cristo%20Redentor.JPG[/IMG]
O.K My friends,
Let's stop to discuss about where the rate crime is low or high; 1st, 2nd or 3rd world; who can or who cannot make the olimpic games. That is against the Olimpic Spirit.
This matter is dead and gone for me. The world goes on.
I want to say all of you will be welcome to the Olimpic Games. I will wait you open arms.
Now, enjoy most beautiful city of world pic.
[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/JAIROS%7E1/CONFIG%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.png[/IMG][IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/JAIROS%7E1/CONFIG%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-1.png[/IMG]

[Housemartin]

Hello. I'm spanyard and I don't have any doubt about that. I won't go to Río because is very very dangerous. Otherwise, I don't have any problem to go to Chicago.

You know there are other factors in the election.

[edsg25]

Hey, Rio,

You might read a variety of responses here about your city and the Olympics. In truth, the real message we have for you is this: CONGRATULATIONS. You won this fair and square and certainly the rise of Brazil on the world stage and South America never having had an Olympics are good reasons for your being selected.

Our issues are not with you. We weren't expecting a coronation in Copenhagen but we did buy in to our touted position in this competition. Rio didn't cause our shock; Tokyo and Madrid did that. And that, as I noted earlier in this thread, was the real reason for our disgust. The IOC is a political cesspool and they the voting on Friday couldn't have been more transparently antiamerican than it was. Not because Chicago lost (we were assured nothing and that is as it should be), but in how we lost. It's no sour grapes to you because you could have won this thing without any antiamerican feelings anyway. That antiamerican feelings in other countries are (IMHO) warranted should have no basis on cities being affected by the politics of their nations.

And neither Tokyo or Madrid did Chicago harm. We have no bone of contention with either. But, again as noted above, the IOC selection process is a charade and quality of bid is not een the key component for selection of host city.

It should be incumbant on the IOC to give justification on why they put 4 cities through a very expensive and time consuming process of trying to obtain the games when, in truth, the merit of the proposals count minimally and the three cities not getting the event are merely the window dressing for an oscar like moment of "and the winner of the..."

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by krock1dk

You Cicagoans should be furious. Chicago was the first city eliminated in its quest to host the olympics because of Obama's antiAmerican rants on his apology tours. I mean think about it....why would the Olympic Committee want to award the winning city to the US when its own President consistently says how bad America is and how corrupt it is and so on? Instead of Rio winning, its more like Obama blowing it for Chicago. Obama's mouth and ego got the best of him this time. And we were told by the crazy, Obama crazed media that he would unite the world and that the world would love him and love us. WRONG!! They rejected him. The media lies and so does Obama.

that's hysterical, krock. i'm laughing my ass off. You managed to get 180° removed from the truth. The world LOVES the fact that an American president says we hold ourselves responsible for our actions. We can be wrong. They are refreshed by it. Hell, I'm refreshed by the notion that this nation I so love can have a leader who is able to admit our faults, make ammends when wrong, and see us as a part of the world community. If GWB operated like Obama, Chicago very well might have the Olympics.

Let me give you something to consider that I know you will completely ignore, Krock:


A TRUE PATRIOT IS CRITICAL OF HIS NATION WHEN IT IS WRONG, IDENTIFIES WHAT IS WRONG AND WORKS TO CORRECT IT. A TRUE PATRIOT HOLDS HIS OWN COUNTRY TO HIGHER STANDARD THAN WHAT HE EXPECTS FROM OTHERS. A TRUE PATRIOT IS MORE HURT BY THE WRONGS HIS COUNTRY DOES TO OTHER NATIONS THAN HE IS BY THE WRONGS OTHER NATIONS DO TO HIS. FOR A TRUE PATRIOT WHO IS ALSO A PERSON COMFORTABLE IN HIS OWN SKIN AND WHO HE IS WANTS HIS NATION TO BE ABLE TO LOOK ITSELF IN THE MIRROR AND RESPECT ITS INTEGRITY AND ITS ACTIONS IN THE MORNING EVERY BIT AS MUCH AS HE WANTS TO DO THE SAME AS AN INDIVIDUAL.

You picked one of the things those abroad really are happy with about the United States and turned it into a negative. No criticism of you, however. I am sure you must be making the big bucks, far more than I am. Taking Obama's positive actions and turning them into negatives can mean only one thing:

you are the program director of Fox Noise...er...News.

Congratulations and let's get the the communist socialist fascist antiamerican, terrorist loving, community organizing, Wright loving, fist bumping faker in the White House kicked on back to his native Kenya.

Somehow I think nothing could make you happier, krock.

[yoyobubba]

Originally Posted by edsg25

It was the US that was eliminated in round one, not the Windy City. It was payback for America from members across the globe. Bagdad's invassion was Chicago's defeat. Throw in the world economic crisis that became earlier but became obvious in 2008, as well. Blame a GWB administration that basically said F you to the word for giving Chicago an F you back.

Totally ridiculous. Yeah blame Bush. LOL. It would have been more likely an F you to Obama, who actually is President now unlike Bush who is just a subtext in history now and who no one thinks about anymore. Obama is the one who is fighting a losing war now and who has boosted our military spending 6% just this year. Otherwise I like Obama, but he needs to get a clue--every time he said "America" and not "United States" during his address to the very international committee I shuddered.

[thePR]

Originally Posted by yoyobubba

Totally ridiculous. Yeah blame Bush. LOL. It would have been more likely an F you to Obama, who actually is President now unlike Bush who is just a subtext in history now and who no one thinks about anymore. Obama is the one who is fighting a losing war now and who has boosted our military spending 6% just this year. Otherwise I like Obama, but he needs to get a clue--every time he said "America" and not "United States" during his address to the very international committee I shuddered.

Uh yeah it is more of a vote against Bush than Obama because it was mainly against America and it's policy's and actions from the Bush years.