Do you think we will get the olympics? (best city, lease)

[Milwaukee City]

I think Chicago has a strong chance but I would feel a lot better if the outfit had a hand in it. Chicago should put the clown back in charge to "influence" the Olympic committee's decision.

[Drover]

Well-worn ground.

//www.city-data.com/forum/chica...-will-get.html

//www.city-data.com/forum/chica...s-chicago.html

//www.city-data.com/forum/chica...s-chicago.html

//www.city-data.com/forum/chica...-olympics.html

//www.city-data.com/forum/chica...al-estate.html

//www.city-data.com/forum/chica...-olympics.html

//www.city-data.com/forum/chica...-olympics.html

[TheLordYourGod]

For what it's worth.

Web site ranks Chicago last in Olympic bid - 3/23/09 - Chicago News - abc7chicago.com

[Damage Control Freak]

Originally Posted by TheLordYourGod

For what it's worth.

Web site ranks Chicago last in Olympic bid - 3/23/09 - Chicago News - abc7chicago.com

Seems to be a pretty useless ranking given its results. It will definitely be a race between Rio and Chicago and in fact it has been all along.

[TheLordYourGod]

Originally Posted by Damage Control Freak

Seems to be a pretty useless ranking given its results. It will definitely be a race between Rio and Chicago and in fact it has been all along.

I don't think it's much of a race at this point.

[brikag]

The 2016 candidate cities are good, not great or promising. My take...

Chicago's bid: Even though they never hosted the Summer Olympics(SO), they were elected to do so in 1904. But Pres. Theodore Roosevelt wanted the S.O. to be held in St. Louis. Why? Because the world's fair was being held there. And Paris did the same thing in 1900. The IOC did hesitate but gave in to their request. Wrong decision. The IOC were so upset b/c Tug-of-war and potato sack races were performed. That outraged the IOC that in 1906 they held an unofficial Olympics in Athens. The US was not invited!
Pro: Strong television coverage. Good multi-purpose Olympic stadium.
Con: History w/ the IOC. Venues are too scattered w/ limited transportation infrastructure.
Prediction....Chicago will be eliminates in the first round vote.

Rio's Bid...This is the first time Rio has made it on the short list. What really helped Rio was the successful Pan Am Games in '07. Like Madrid, their venues are located in three major sections with the Olympic stadium and Village located in the center. They are easily accessible by rail system. If they won the bid, they would be the first South American city to host the SO.
Pro: Great television coverage. Successful Pan AM games. Would be the first host city in S.A. Most of the venues are built.
Con: High crime in some parts of Rio (this years carnival was a fiasco). First time to the short list. Questionable funding from Gov't, or lack there of.
Prediction.... Rio will be eliminated in the second round.

Madrid's Bid: This is Madrid's second time around when they lost in the third round of elimination for the race for the 2012 Games. Barcelona is the only Spanish city to host the SO, in 1992 (I was there and it was the best). Their bid has their venues concentrated in three major areas that are easily accessible by a fairly good subway and bus system within a 20 km distance.
Pro: Second time around with major restructuring of their bid. Strong infrastructure of hotels and transportation.
Con: Weak venue plan, a lot of the venues need to be built or revamped. Too close to the London games of 2012.
Prediction...Madrid will be eliminated in the final round.

Tokyo's bid... This is the first time for their bid since they hosted the SO in 1964. Their bid is known as the 10km Olympics, b/c every venue and competition will be held within 10km from the Olympic Stadium and Village. Everything will be accessible by subway system. They are improving existing venues from the 1964 SO including the original Olympic Stadium. They will be building necessary venues since more games have been added. With Japans innovation in land reclamation, the Olympic stadium and village will be built on Tokyo Bay!
Pro: Close proximity of venues for everyone. Excellent infastructure all around! Past SO experiences from 1964.
Con: Too close from Beijing games. Congestion on streets and subways.
Prediction.... Tokyo Will Be The Host City for 2016!!!!!

Sorry guys... I want Chicago to win but you know... their BID stinks! There are too many variables that the IOC will say no. You guys have a great advertisement program, but your program is not up to par to Rio's and Tokyo's. After Atlanta's fiasco with traffic and congestion, the IOC is looking at the compactness of the games. Chicago doesn't have it!!!!! Better luck next time!!!! It's a toss up between Tokyo and Madrid.

See for yourself...

Chicago 2016: Sure Thing, Say Oddsmakers; Long Shot, Says I.O.C. Report - Rings Blog - NYTimes.com

This link was written some time ago, but the votes could change.

GamesBids.com - Reaction To Chicago̢۪s Last Place Ranking On BidIndex

This was released yesterday.

Now this is a very long pdf., but for the Olympic geeks like myself, it gives you an idea what the IOC is looking for in a city to host the Olympics. This is straight from the IOC report from 2008. This is how they broke it down from seven cities to four candidate cities. The grading starts on page 16.

http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_1317.pdf (broken link)

2nd of October, 2009 will be decision day!

It looks like a battle between Madrid and Tokyo. The IOC will tour these four cities during the summer. Let the games begin!!!!!

[Basekamp]

high Five!

Originally Posted by Avengerfire

I would go there for the better opportunity with the women for sure.

[Damage Control Freak]

Originally Posted by brikag

It looks like a battle between Madrid and Tokyo. The IOC will tour these four cities during the summer.

Are you serious? Most of the factors the IOC goes by are kinda vague, supposing there are any besides all the who-knows-who and corruption.
Either way, there's no way in hell they'll be giving 2016 to Madrid just after the 2012 games being held in London. Venus or Atlantis are more likely to get the 2016 games than Madrid.
Tokyo suffers from a similar problem obviously.

Rio is a pretty strong contender for the same geographical reasons. I'd even go so far to say that it's almost mandatory to give them 2016 except there's a really good excuse. Given that almost everything is already in place the general lack of reliability, funding, blablabla doesn't really matter. The only real issue would be safety. And of course that S.A. doesn't really have a good lobby on the IOC, which in reality might be Rios biggest flaw, even though the US aren't that popular with the IOC either. But at least they'll have no trouble buying some judges.

PS: And btw the troubled "history" the US have with the IOC is ot about potato sack races but about the US having a pretty staright-forward capitalist interest in the games, i.e. insisting on having a bigger piece of the IOCs money pie than other hosts usually do and caring more about efficet use of money than about atmosphere or monumental shows

[Chicago60614]

I was REALLY pumped about this last year, but for whatever reason I could care less now. I'm perfectly fine if we don't get it.

We have more than enough things to worry about regardless of obsessing over fixing things up for the olympics. I know money would come to the city, but things like that always seem too good to be true. Fix stuff before you start building new stuff.

[brikag]

Originally Posted by Damage Control Freak

Are you serious? Most of the factors the IOC goes by are kinda vague, supposing there are any besides all the who-knows-who and corruption.
Either way, there's no way in hell they'll be giving 2016 to Madrid just after the 2012 games being held in London. Venus or Atlantis are more likely to get the 2016 games than Madrid.
Tokyo suffers from a similar problem obviously.

Rio is a pretty strong contender for the same geographical reasons. I'd even go so far to say that it's almost mandatory to give them 2016 except there's a really good excuse. Given that almost everything is already in place the general lack of reliability, funding, blablabla doesn't really matter. The only real issue would be safety. And of course that S.A. doesn't really have a good lobby on the IOC, which in reality might be Rios biggest flaw, even though the US aren't that popular with the IOC either. But at least they'll have no trouble buying some judges.

PS: And btw the troubled "history" the US have with the IOC is ot about potato sack races but about the US having a pretty staright-forward capitalist interest in the games, i.e. insisting on having a bigger piece of the IOCs money pie than other hosts usually do and caring more about efficet use of money than about atmosphere or monumental shows

I am serious. As for the who-knows-who and corruption thing you mentioned in the beginning, that's all in the past. If anything, the president of the IOC has addressed that issue and made it clear if there is proof of corruption or money/favors exchanged...the elected host city will be removed and the existing ioc members involved will be stripped of their titles. If that scenario were to happen, the S.O. will be hosted in another city that hosted them previously. Those cities that have signed a charter with the IOC would have to agree to maintain their venues for 20 years for such cases. It has happened before, but under certain circumstances (unlike the scenario above)!

Now, with the comment about geography,ie., London 2012 and (possible) Madrid 2016. The IOC is not looking at that factor as their main decision factor. It's the city that will best represent the Olympics. Tokyo is only eight years from Beijing. If you want geographical locations, Cape Town, SA. had a chance for the 2004 Olympics but lost to Athens. Why? They were touted as the little darlings of the candidate city that year in 1997. Even the president of the IOC at that time, Antonio Samerach, wanted the games to be held in Cape Town. It would give them the recognition of being the first host city in Africa. But their bid was flawed and it failed.

As for the Chicago history with the IOC, the potato sack races and tug-of-war is just an example. The US as a whole has had terrible experiences with organizing the S & W O's. Denver (refusing to host), Los Angeles (gang members shooting at tour buses and traffic), Atlanta (too hot, Olympic park bombing, and traffic), Squaw Valley (not completing the bobsled course), and the infamous Salt Lake City scandal.

Now with the mentality of buying judges like you mentioned lastly, is something of the past. I don't think a candidate city would risk that much to host the Olympics. Let's think, if Chicago were to "host" the SO, and a scandal came out like SLC. What do you think the IOC will do? I do. They'll yank that charter from Chicago and the US so fast, it would make their head spin. Just imagine, half way through construction and that scandal broke out. Who will be left with the construction costs? The tax payers! That's why the IOC placed that initiative into that charter. They went fair game all throughout. From the athletes to the decision of the host city.

In conclusion.....Tokyo or Madrid for the 2016 Olympic games.