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.
To illustrate, the finalists for the next Winter Olympics are Almaty (Kazakastan, Borat's home country) and Beijing (which doesn't have mountains or winter facilities). Both countries are repressive dictatorships. All the democracies dropped out, (Germany, Austria and Norway all dropped bids because of IOC ridiculousness).
Basically the Olympics only makes sense if you are a repressive third world dictatorship (see Russia, China, Kazakastan). Everyone else needs to stay far away unless you want to get hosed by the incredibly corrupt gangsters running the IOC.
But to be fair though, I must stress the point that no other city chose to stick around. Those were the only ones remaining, not like the IOC forced them or chose those cities. Whoever bids, will get selected. Norway, Austria and Germany all dropped out, for whatever reason.
I do agree that those are very odd cities to host, but oh well.
I just want LA to get some federal dollars to speed up the Purple Line, which was the big news a few days ago: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...909-story.html. Seems like we won't get the nod as the 2024 host, but I think LA would handle it well so perhaps the IOC will surprise us.
I am pretty ambivalent about the Olympics. On one hand it will be annoying as the city will become very crowded (some events will be held about a mile from my apartment) and there is always the chance (however unlikely) that LA ends up on the hook for overspending. On the other hand, it would be another thing to be proud of in a city that seems to have shook the stereotype of lacking civic pride, it would showcase the massive transformation/renaissance the city has undergone (by 2024 the transit system will legitimately be "robust" with nearly every venue connected by LRT or HRT), and it would be fun because my daughter would be a preteen and probably be something she'd never forget.
So either way I'll be fine with the outcome. I do think there is strong chance LA bids again in 2032 and gets it if this time around doesn't come to fruition.
I just can't think of another US city that can support the infrastructure needed to host the Olympics pulling it off as well as LA could. LA is already morphing into something very different in the 21st century. 1984 is getting more distant in terms of what LA was back then. And lets face it, a whole world of international cultures is already ever present in LA running the whole gamut. This native Bostonian supports Los Angeles 2024.
Chicago definitely makes a lot of sense, but I guess they were feeling too deflated from the last failed bid to have tried for it again.
Chicago already has a lot of the transit infrastructure the IOC seems to favor and arguably had excess infrastructure in the form of the many commuter rail lines which could have been scheduled to run at greater frequencies during the event. It had a large body of water abutting the city for the nautical events. It had a large number of pre-existing stadia and other facilities within and in close to distance to the city, and with many of those facilities within a fairly short distance from each other. I think there's a pretty strong technical argument for Chicago actually being substantially more ready than Los Angeles or any other US city for hosting the Summer Olympics.
but Chicago is very much not in the running
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 09-15-2015 at 06:51 PM..
Chicago definitely makes a lot of sense, but I guess they were feeling too deflated from the last failed bid to have tried for it again.
Chicago already has a lot of the transit infrastructure the IOC seems to favor and arguably had excess infrastructure in the form of the many commuter rail lines which could have been scheduled to run at greater frequencies during the event. It had a large body of water abutting the city for the nautical events. It had a large number of pre-existing stadia and other facilities within and in close to distance to the city, and with many of those facilities within a fairly short distance from each other. I think there's a pretty strong technical argument for Chicago actually being substantially more ready than Los Angeles or any other US city for hosting the Summer Olympics.
but Chicago is very much not in the running
To quote the Chicago Tribune's article on what could have been, "But you have to wonder how much of a financial burden it would have been for a city that's already grappling with how to keep its schools and municipal government from financial collapse." If Chicago had won the Olympics ... - Chicago Tribune
London's games were supposed to cost $4 billion and they spent 14. Beijing spent $40 billion for their summer games, and Sochi spent $50 billion. Daley had an insurance policy that would have allegedly shielded Chicago's taxpayers, but who knows if it would have worked. Chicago was only willing to spend $4.8 billion for 2016, after all.
Until the IOC gets its act together, don't expect many cities to be willing to pony up to the astronomical price tag the Olympics currently come with. The IOC had the rug pulled out from under it with the Winter Olympics coming down to Beijing and Almaty, and it probably won't be long until the same thing starts happening with the more prestigious Summer Olympics.
To quote the Chicago Tribune's article on what could have been, "But you have to wonder how much of a financial burden it would have been for a city that's already grappling with how to keep its schools and municipal government from financial collapse." If Chicago had won the Olympics ... - Chicago Tribune
London's games were supposed to cost $4 billion and they spent 14. Beijing spent $40 billion for their summer games, and Sochi spent $50 billion. Daley had an insurance policy that would have allegedly shielded Chicago's taxpayers, but who knows if it would have worked. Chicago was only willing to spend $4.8 billion for 2016, after all.
Until the IOC gets its act together, don't expect many cities to be willing to pony up to the astronomical price tag the Olympics currently come with. The IOC had the rug pulled out from under it with the Winter Olympics coming down to Beijing and Almaty, and it probably won't be long until the same thing starts happening with the more prestigious Summer Olympics.
I think Chicago is one of the cases where this could have been justifiable. Daley had at least some kind of plan to deal with a runaway budget and Chicago already had a good deal of the infrastructure and prime land, mostly vacant (Northerly Island at that point) to host a lot of the events. At the same time, it's arguable that Chicago has been grappling with both fairly little press internationally and generally negative press domestically so an Olympics Games in recent years probably yields a lot more dividends for Chicago than for a place like London or Beijing.
Though, yea, maybe it's good Chicago didn't get the bid until some reforms are made at the IOC.
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.
