Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If by "FREE publicity" you are referring to the media attention surrounding the host city selection, then it was anything but. Placing an official bid and promoting a city to the IOC cost the city of Chicago around $100 million.
I meant free publicity compared to what would be needed to actually have an Olympics. One can only imagine how much the Chinese government spent to throw the Summer Olympics in Beijing. I doubt if Chicago and Illinois could have had the same support from our broke Federal government.
In any case, just the amount of police overtime needed for WEEKS (not a single day like most events) to protect the Olympics would be staggering.
Uhhh....the Los Angeles Olympics was one of the most successful Olympic games in history. It's the reason there is incredible competition for host cities today.
Look at the response before the one you responded to.
Were you sour because Chicago beat out L.A. as the US candidate city?
LA has already hosted the Olympics TWICE, which is the primary reason Chicago was chosen as the U.S. bid city this time around. They deserved a chance to compete for the games, but failed. It's really no big surprise.
I think Rio was the real frontrunner all along. I never believed all the hype in the U.S. that Chicago was the favorite. Considering the source, U.S. media, what would you expect. All they do these days is opine incessantly with no hard facts or evidence to support their claims.
With the last time being 25 years ago; it's possible he/she wasn't even born yet or was too young to remember the '84 games (I know I was; I was only 4 years old at the time). This was an entirely new bid.
I can't help your unfamiliarity with the subject, your prior statement about L.A. being sour is pretty laughable though. L.A. is what a lot of the modern games are modeled on...L.A. rejuvenated the entire U.S. in the state of the olympics, considering we boycotted the one prior in the heat of the Cold War.
Nice try though!
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeaconJ
It's so sad...in every other country around the world, the city's bid is a national event that people of that country take pride in and support. In the U.S., support is scant outside of the bid city.
Some of us regular folks all across the U.S. were very much in support of Chicago's bid and were very disappointed in the outcome today.
While this may be true... U.S. isn't really bonded like other countries... I remember being in Paris summer of 2005 when London got the olympics...it was a big deal and people were pissed off.
LA has already hosted the Olympics TWICE, which is the primary reason Chicago was chosen as the U.S. bid city this time around. They deserved a chance to compete for the games, but failed. It's really no big surprise.
I think Rio was the real frontrunner all along. I never believed all the hype in the U.S. that Chicago was the favorite. Considering the source, U.S. media, what would you expect. All they do these days is opine incessantly with no hard facts or evidence to support their claims.
It never was... I voted against it with all those poll people summer of 2008 in Chicago... it wouldn't have been a good thing exactly, just my opinion though. But yes not a surprise if you were actually following IOC... and if you look at history Chicago has been a final candidate city 4 times now yet has lost every time.
Detroit, believe it or not has been a final candidate 7 times and never got it... Perhaps the USOC is running the wrong cities???
San Francisco would be great to hold the Olympics. Sucks for Chicago but I though Rio was the front runner for a long time as well. Oh and don't bring up 2020 because the US won't be getting that one either.
LA has already hosted the Olympics TWICE, which is the primary reason Chicago was chosen as the U.S. bid city this time around.
That doesn't mean that some Los Angeleans might not have been sour that they didn't win the bid, because some certainly were.
Quote:
They deserved a chance to compete for the games, but failed. It's really no big surprise.
I agree.
Quote:
I think Rio was the real frontrunner all along. I never believed all the hype in the U.S. that Chicago was the favorite. Considering the source, U.S. media, what would you expect. All they do these days is opine incessantly with no hard facts or evidence to support their claims.
I tend to agree with that as well.
Last edited by Akhenaton06; 10-03-2009 at 01:08 PM..
I can't help your unfamiliarity with the subject, your prior statement about L.A. being sour is pretty laughable though. L.A. is what a lot of the modern games are modeled on...L.A. rejuvenated the entire U.S. in the state of the olympics, considering we boycotted the one prior in the heat of the Cold War. Nice try though!
Apparently you weren't aware that some Los Angeleans were sour that Chicago was picked over LA as the US bid city. As a matter of fact, for those who were a bit sour about it, it was for the very exact reasons you give: "Los Angeles is an Olympic city and has hosted the very successful '84 games. We have a proven track record. How could they have chosen Chicago over us?" I heard this sentiment expressed on other forums that I frequent when it was announced that Chicago beat out LA, so I know what I'm talking about. All I was suggesting is that perhaps TheRealAngelion could have been among that crowd. Maybe he's not, but that's why I asked in the first place.
Looks like the Chicago outfit is losing it's influence and what ever happened to the Daley Machine?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
