2016 Oympics bid

I live near Chicago, and was wondering what other thoughts were on the bid for the Olympics.


The Chicago 2016 Olympic bid is the attempt by the city of Chicago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago) and the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) — with the support of other cities, townships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_township) and villages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_%28United_States%29) in the state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state) of Illinois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois) — to be chosen by the International Olympic Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Olympic_Committee) (IOC) as the host city for the 2016 Summer Olympics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Summer_Olympics). On July 26 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_26), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006), the United States Olympic Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Olympic_Committee) (USOC) narrowed its list of applicant cities to three: Chicago, Los Angeles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles%2C_California) and San Francisco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco%2C_California);[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_2016_Olympic_bid#_note-USOC_shortlist) but the latter dropped out from the running on November 13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_13), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_2016_Olympic_bid#_note-San_Francisco_quits) The final stage of the USOC internal selection occurred on April 14 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_14), 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007), at Washington, D.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington%2C_D.C.)'s Embassy Row Hotel, where each bid team made a last 40-minute presentation to the USOC board members.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_2016_Olympic_bid#_note-Election) At about 9:00 pm UTC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC), Chicago was announced as the United States bid for the 2016 Olympic Games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Games) by USOC President Peter Ueberroth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ueberroth).[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_2016_Olympic_bid#_note-yahoosports) In the event of Chicago being selected by the IOC, the 2016 Games will be the first Summer Olympics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_Olympic_Games) held in the Americas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas) since the 1996 Atlanta Games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Summer_Olympics). The final selection from among the international candidates will be made on October 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2), 2009 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009), in Copenhagen, Denmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen%2C_Denmark).[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_2016_Olympic_bid#_note-IOCrules)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_2016_Olympic_bid#_note-C16faq) The finalists will be named by the International Olympic Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Olympic_Committee) in June 2008.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_2016_Olympic_bid#_note-IOCrules)
Chicago is no newcomer to Olympic bids. In 1901, the city was unanimously chosen by the IOC to stage the 1904 Summer Olympics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1904_Summer_Olympics),[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_2016_Olympic_bid#_note-0) but the Games were moved to St. Louis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Louis%2C_Missouri) to coincide with the 1904 World's Fair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase_Exposition).[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_2016_Olympic_bid#_note-Hickok_1904) Chicago also bid for the 1952 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Summer_Olympics) and 1956 Summer Olympics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_Summer_Olympics), but without success.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_2016_Olympic_bid#_note-Past_elections)

I would like to know about the other cities open to the bid

I actually had no idea which cities were bidding so I did a little look, aside from Chicago, Rio, Baku, Doha, Tokyo, Madrid and Prague are also bidding.

Have a look at this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Summer_Olympics) to see some of the proposed emblems. :tu:

MADRID 2016

You may take it as patriotic pride, but we still don't understand why we lost the Games of 2012 before London; ours was a great project. So, sorry, Chicago, but this time we're going till the end! ;)

About the logo, it was chosen by the people of Madrid after between these ten finalists (http://esmadridnomadriz.blogspot.com/2007/08/logos-madrid-2016.html)after a public contest. The one which won was my favourite!

I doubt that European cities will have much of a chance, since 2012 will be London. Rio, if they manage to make a convincing bid should have an advantage. I can't imagine that a city like Doha has much of chance, facilities would be okay, but the temperatures during the summer are hardly suitable for many sports :shrug:

I don't think Chicago will get it. I live very close to there and they can't handle their traffic on normal days. (ever tried taking I-94 through downtown?) When a big event is taking place it is even worse, and those are usually just 1 or 2 days. I can't imagine them trying to host an Olympics. Add in all the recent doping scandals involving American athletes, and the IOC isn't very fond of the United States right now. I agree that Madrid and Prague are fighting an uphill battle due to the 2012 Summer Olympics in London and the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi. As for Baku, I just don't think Azerbaijan is economically ready to prepare for and host a games.

That leaves Rio, Tokyo, and Doha. It would be very cool to see the Olympics in Rio. South America has never hosted an Olympics- summer or winter. Brazil is perhaps the most influential world power never to host the Olympics, with the exception of China which hosts in 2008. From a personal point of view, Rio is my preference at the moment. Tokyo is second in my opinion. Japan hasn't hosted the Summer Olympics since 1964. They have tons of money, so financing it shouldn't be a problem, and one of the most efficient transportation systems in existence. It would be cool to see Doha host an Olympics, just because they've never been in an Arab nation before. The biggest thing working against Qatar is it's neighbors. Qatar is one of the most stable countries in the Middle East, but I can't imagine the logistical and security aspects of putting on such a large international event in a nation that may be literally surrounded by war in 2016.

I don't think Chicago will get it. I live very close to there and they can't handle their traffic on normal days.

that is way way too funny....I'm a trying to imagine anything like the traffic....also where would they put all of the athletes? There is no room. We are very crowded as it is

I'm really hoping that Chicago will get it, because if they do, the Equestrian events will possibly be hosted extremely close to my house, which would be awesome!! Of course, this won't be my house by 2016, but still... Again, it isn't very likely, but we've still got a 1/7 chance!

I don't think Chicago will get it. I live very close to there and they can't handle their traffic on normal days. (ever tried taking I-94 through downtown?) When a big event is taking place it is even worse, and those are usually just 1 or 2 days.

I don't think traffic would be a disadvantage at all. Imagine the traffic in Beijing, where about 17 million people reside, as opposed to Chicago's 3 million, and they still managed to get the Olympics. I live in Chicago, and besides rush hour, the traffic is nothing worse than you would expect of any large, major city in any part of the country/world. Plus some of the venues that they plan to build aren't located in areas that are congested or prone to congestion. For example, the stadium would be located on the southside in Washington Park, not downtown. We've hosted many national and international events without traffic being an issue.

Chicago has a lot of things going for it, such as the vast transportation system, architecture, etc., but it seems like Tokyo and Rio are our strongest competitors. I doubt they would be in Madrid because the Olympics were just in Europe in 2004 (not to mention the '06 Winter Olympics in Italy), and they will be again in 2012. The US hasn't had the games since '96, and South America has never had the games. As we know, the games are in Asia this year, but I could still see Tokyo getting them because of the type of city it is. It seems like they would have a lot of things going for them as well. Honestly, I think it would be hard to predict. Beijing/China was a surprise, considering some of the issues they had to overcome (pollution, politics, the fact that it is a developing nation, etc), so it's really hard to guess.

I'm not sure I'd support an American bid, haven't the Americans already had it more times than any other country? If Prague put together a decent bid that would be a beautiful Olympics, but as it's already been pointed out that would mean back to back European games. I like the idea of Rio though, provided they can get a decent bid together.

I'm not sure I'd support an American bid, haven't the Americans already had it more times than any other country?

Yes, I think you're right. Here's a list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympics#Olympic_Games_host_cities) of the host cities. The USA has hosted both the summer and winter games 4 times, so 8 in total.
France is next with 5 games in total, followed by Germany, Italy and Japan with 3, and Canada and the UK will each host its second games in 2010 and 2012.

Based on that and the fact that the games have never been held in South America, Rio looks pretty good.

Yes, I think you're right. Here's a list of the host cities. The USA has hosted both the summer and winter games 4 times, so 8 in total.
France is next with 5 games in total, followed by Germany, Italy and Japan with 3, and Canada and the UK will each host its second games in 2010 and 2012.

London has had it twice already 1908 and 1944

London has had it twice already 1908 and 1944
It was 1948. This is the first time London has actually won a bid - in 1908 it took over from Rome; because of the Mt Vesuvius eruption Italy could not afford them and in 1948 there was no proper bidding process just a consensus that London should get them.

I'm not sure I'd support an American bid, haven't the Americans already had it more times than any other country? If Prague put together a decent bid that would be a beautiful Olympics, but as it's already been pointed out that would mean back to back European games. I like the idea of Rio though, provided they can get a decent bid together.

Prague is unfortunately out already :(, together with Doha and Baku (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Summer_Olympics). There are only 4 candidates now - Chicago, Madrid, Tokyo and Rio de Janeiro. Out of these four, I think Rio and Chicago have the best chance to get it. This year's Olympics are in Asia, the next ones are going to be in Europe, so in 2016 they should be held in America.

It was 1948. This is the first time London has actually won a bid - in 1908 it took over from Rome; because of the Mt Vesuvius eruption Italy could not afford them and in 1948 there was no proper bidding process just a consensus that London should get them.

Oh yes your right, did they even have the Olympics during the second world war?

Yes, I think you're right. Here's a list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympics#Olympic_Games_host_cities) of the host cities. The USA has hosted both the summer and winter games 4 times, so 8 in total.
France is next with 5 games in total, followed by Germany, Italy and Japan with 3, and Canada and the UK will each host its second games in 2010 and 2012.

Based on that and the fact that the games have never been held in South America, Rio looks pretty good.Agreed, I think it would be great to have it in South America. It's about time! If any city down there has the resources to pull off a great games it would be Rio. Could you imagine the opening ceremony? :cool:

Agreed, I think it would be great to have it in South America. It's about time! If any city down there has the resources to pull off a great games it would be Rio. Could you imagine the opening ceremony? :cool:

Carnaval! :birthday: (That's the closest festival smiley :lol:).

I want Paris in 2020 ! I still don't get why we weren't chosen for 2012 :(
Well London isn't that far from France so I guess I could just cross the Channel if I wanted to go and see some things, but it would have been so great for France to host the Olympic...

So for 2016 I think I'm supporting Rio. It'll be great to have the light thrown on South American and especially Brazil, just to show that there's not just misery, poverty and crime in the country.

I hope it's in Chicago then I can go to it! ;)

I want Paris in 2020 ! I still don't get why we weren't chosen for 2012 :(


London 2012, Madrid 2016, Paris 2020, I don't think the ICO likes it... At least one of us will get disappointed, I'm afraid.

Oh yes your right, did they even have the Olympics during the second world war?

Nope. Nor did they have them in 1916.

But the olympiads (four year spans) were counted so although 1920 were the Games of the VIIth Olympiad they were only the 6th modern Olympics.

As Europe and Asia hosted (and will host) 2004, 2008 and 2012 you can almost take Tokyo, Madrid and Prague out of contention.

Doha: Middle East, too unstable to gamble on something seven years in the future.

Baku: capital of Azerbijan; too poor and unstable. I'm suprised Tashkent hasn't made its usual bid.

Leaves Chicago and Rio. Could go either way. Politically Rio would be favoured as South America has never hosted.

I hope and pray to the Goddess above that Chicago does NOT win the bid. Taxes for the city and Cook county are astronomical enough. The city needs to concentrate on more important things than worry over an overhyped sports competition that not many Americans at least care about.

So, it's less than a week left for the final choice. What do you think will happen? I must hope for Madrid, but I think it more probably will be Tokyo or Chicago.

I hope and pray to the Goddess above that Chicago does NOT win the bid. Taxes for the city and Cook county are astronomical enough. The city needs to concentrate on more important things than worry over an overhyped sports competition that not many Americans at least care about.

It's not the cost. It's the fact that for seven years everything will revolve around the Olympics absolutely no public infrastructure will be built if it's not Olympcs related and for the period of the games and the lead-up the city will be unliveable.

Chicago will get the games. The IOC aren't going to say "no" to Obama.

Agreed

So, it's less than a week left for the final choice. What do you think will happen? I must hope for Madrid, but I think it more probably will be Tokyo or Chicago.


I'm hoping for Madrid or Prague, now that I know they're in the running :lol: I kind of don't want the Olympics in Chicago...not just because of the insane crime rate, but just because.

Madrid shouldn't get it, because it will mean the games are held back-to-back in Europe, after London 2012.

Rio shouldn't get it either, since Brazil already has the 2014 World Cup.

Tokyo shouldn't get it, because by then, it will only be eight years since the games were in the Japan/China region.


So it should be Chicago

I'm hoping for Tokyo. I'd actually go if it was there, not too far away. Plus, I know it's not a determining factor or anything, but I think they'd put on an incredible show.

It's a shame that the Olympics now can only really be held in a few mega world cities.

I'd like to see second and third level cities hosting the event and getting improved sporting and housing infrastructures out of it.

What kind of cities are you thinking of? Ones that could actually afford it, house all the athletes, tourists etc? (I'm having trouble phrasing that while not coming across like a smartalec, but I am genuinely curious as to where you're thinking of)

I'm thinking of cities like St Louis, Leeds, Wellington, Brisbane, Dublin etc...


Big cities just below the ranks of New York, Tokyo, London, Paris etc...


This can only occur though if the Olympic Games are downsized, which they urgently must be.

As it is now, the Olympics have too many events, too many athletes, they are overcommercialised, and they require too many expensive new facilities to be built which may not even be used often after the event is over.

The IOC need to strip them down significantly.

Please don't bring it here to Chicago, please don't bring it here to Chicago, please don't bring it here to Chicago. We don't need it! :eeep:

Rio shouldn't get it either, since Brazil already has the 2014 World Cup.
What does other sports have to do with this decision? There is always something going on, so that decision can't be based on that.

It should go to Rio. The Olympic games were never held in South America. They should get a chance. US hosted it four times already. I am also not in favour of Europe again, so I say RIOOOO!!!!

I'm thinking of cities like St Louis, Leeds, Wellington, Brisbane, Dublin etc...


Big cities just below the ranks of New York, Tokyo, London, Paris etc...


This can only occur though if the Olympic Games are downsized, which they urgently must be.

I don't know much about the others you listed but Brisbane wouldn't be appropriate at all, even if scaled down. Why do you think the games need to be scaled down anyway? From a personal point of view, there are many pointless sports but they are sports nonetheless and I cant see any of them being dropped (if anything, I can see more being added (ie T20 cricket)).

Why is Chicago such a bad choice? London will have the Olympics in 2012 and already there are great debates going on as a lot of the plans for public transport and various venues have not been thought through properly and the games will cost more than originally anticipated and the poltitians keep blaming each other. Is that simila rin Chicago?

^ Sounds similar to just about any city hosting the games.

@Hysteria: I visited Barcelona After the Olympics were held there, that city really profited from the games being held there as the whole public transport system was renewed and gave the city an economic boost. I cannot see this happening in London though.

Yes, my parents say that pre-Olympics and post-Olympic Barcelona are completely different cities (I've only known the post-Olympics one, since I was just 8 in 1992)

BTW, you should see the Plaza de Oriente now, where people have gathered to wait for the voting. What a party... I hadn't seen so many people there since the Crown Prince got married.

EDIT: 17:25, first voting round is over. Chicago gets out of the race, being the less voted city on this round.
17:29, second round over. Tokyo is out, the election is between Rio and Madrid.

I think either of these cities could be suitable, it would boost their status and their economy.

CONGRATULATIONS, RIO DE JANEIRO 2016

Well, and as for us... GO, MADRID 2020

YES! Congrats to who is still in the bid. Chicago did not need this. People would get killed and the entire State would be in mayhem. :scared:

First time ever in South America ¡Finally!!
This is a mayor mayor celebration for that

I'm thinking of cities like St Louis, Leeds, Wellington, Brisbane, Dublin etc...

Big cities just below the ranks of New York, Tokyo, London, Paris etc...


Athens was the smallest city since Helsinki to hold the Olympics and there were a lot of people worrying. I'd love to see a smaller city get it, maybe like Auckland or Dublin. What would be really cool is for Vancover, Sapporo, or Munich to become the first cities to have had both Summer and Winter Olympics

As for not wanting the Olympics, I live in the only city to turn them down (Denver, Winter 1976) the growth, the crowds and infrastucture came anyway. Chicago will still have growth and pollution and crime etc. Comes from having too many people.

You might as well get a great party and the boost to the economy.

As for Madrid in 2020, I think it won't go to a Spanish speaking country. Chicago's bid I think suffered for simular reasons with London having it in 2012.

All the Best,

Lunatic

What does other sports have to do with this decision? There is always something going on, so that decision can't be based on that.

There's nothing going on that compares to the World Cup or Olympics.

While Rio did get the Games, I question the wisdom of Brazil getting the two biggest events in the world within two years of each other.

I don't know much about the others you listed but Brisbane wouldn't be appropriate at all, even if scaled down. Why do you think the games need to be scaled down anyway? From a personal point of view, there are many pointless sports but they are sports nonetheless and I cant see any of them being dropped (if anything, I can see more being added (ie T20 cricket)).

They need to be scaled down because they are too big and expensive.

As for Madrid in 2020, I think it won't go to a Spanish speaking country.

Why not? The last Spanish-speaking Olympic site was Barcelona, Spain in 1992.

Why not? The last Spanish-speaking Olympic site was Barcelona, Spain in 1992.

Here is the theory. They like to spread the Olympics around. Tokyo's bid was probably weakend by Beijing having the the Olympics in 2008 and having it in the same Cultural sphere too close together. Simularly, Chicago and London are both English speaking cities and so Chicago's bid was weakened. I think Madrid and Rio are both in the same "cultural sphere" in some ways as well. I think they'll go for somewhere "different" in 2020.

BTW, I mispoke. I know Rio is a Portugese speaking city. But before I posted originally my roommate and I were talking about other Latin American cities that could host an Olympics (Our answers, Santiago and Bios Aires) and I had "Spanish speaking" in my head.
I basically think that Madrid would suffer a handicap for being too "Latin" like Tokyo suffered for being too East Asian or Chicago would suffer from being in another English speaking country.

2020, I think a Russian city like Moscow or St Petersburg, other European cities like Paris or Berlin, Toronto in Canada, or a odd choice like Johanasburg, Istanbul, Bangkok or Auckland all might be strong contenders.

All the Best,

Lunatic

Paris wants to be candidate for the 2020 Games. They tried it for the 2012 and failed, so they've had time to do many things. They'd be really tough adversaries. Prague or Rome, that also are planning to be candidates, could have less developed projects, but Paris...

No, I don't actually think that Madrid is candidate for 2020. Though they had a great popular and institutional support, the Games were a personal project of the Mayor (malicious gossip says he wanted to use the Games to boost his career and become candidate to Prime Minister); he's tried twice and failed twice, this second time after an enormous effort of everyone, from anonimous volunteers to the Government and the Royal Family. I think that it was now or never, at least for him.

France should put all their efforts into their bid for EURO 2016 instead.

There's nothing going on that compares to the World Cup or Olympics.

While Rio did get the Games, I question the wisdom of Brazil getting the two biggest events in the world within two years of each other.


Which is one reason the IOC plumped for Rio. The world cup will be a proving ground for the Olympics.

(Although for me the WC is about the only event more boring and pointless than the olympics.)

Well it depends on whether you like football or not.

If you don't, then obviously you won't find the World Cup interesting.

YES! Congrats to who is still in the bid. Chicago did not need this. People would get killed and the entire State would be in mayhem. :scared:
How do you know this? Do you think there would be lax security? Do you think the city wouldn't be prepared? Do you think the Olympics would be disorganized?

Apart from HP, Olympism is a major hobby of mine.

I think it's very obvious Chicago lost for the following reasons:

1. United States Olympic Committee relations with the International Olympic Committee are in the dumps. With the controversy over how much money the USOC should get from Olympic revenues, the US Olympic TV network debacle, and overall lack of strong relationships between the two organizations, Chicago never really had a chance. And now, no US city will bid until these problems and relationships are fixed. This could take as long as a decade.

2. Rio was really successful in lobbying the IOC. They knew if Chicago mustered enough votes and reached the last round of IOC voting, the Windy City could possibly take it by the smallest margin. They managed to convince enough IOC members to make sure Chicago did not get past the first round. With Chicago out early, there was no way Rio was going to loose.

The city of Chicago (including its crime (which relatively speaking, isn't that bad) itself had nothing to do with the city's failure to win its 2016 bid.

Madrid got so far because of Spaniard IOC Honorary President for Life Juan Antonio Samaranch played dirty. He pleaded in Madrid's presentation, "As you know fellow colleges, I'm 89 years old. I ask you to please give my country of Spain the honor of hosting the Games." He basically played the “Do me this favor, I’m dying” card. There are still many IOC members who are loyal to him and voted for Madrid. Madrid would be strong for 2020 if they decided to bid again.

And poor Tokyo! They never had much of a chance either. After Beijing 2008, it was just bad timing on their part. If the 2018 Winter Games don't go to South Korea, Tokyo could come up very strong in 2020.

I feel really bad about Chicago. They ended up being collateral from USOC - IOC bickering. The 2016 Games would have been a catalyst to decrease crime, accelerate infrastructure improvements, inject an economic boost of billions, and raise the prestige of the city on the world stage. :(

It can be very hard to enter the US as a foreigner (talk to your friend from overseas). I think that was a point which came up in the discussions as well.