Chicago?

  • Mepark

    Posts: 806

    Sep 30, 2009 6:30 PM GMT
    IN JUST TWO DAYS.... Does Chicago have a good chance of being selected as the host city of the 2016 Summer Olympics?

    And Chicagoans', why are some of you opposed to this? I know there are some worries over costs, but do you realize the construction projects/skyscrapers that will pop up before and after the games? In addition, the tourism, national attention, and the image of the city will change forever.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 30, 2009 6:47 PM GMT
    Madrid needs to win. It gives me an excuse to pull my bf to go with me to watch the opening ceremonies in the land of our ancestors, and maybe making a trip out to Ibiza..... * icon_biggrin.gif plus... if i get to see the men's swimming events.. that could always be a plus. Have family Id like to go see too. =)

    I dont want Chicago to get it because I don't agree with Obama's priorities. I feel like he is just repaying political favors and its getting old. I want a public health care option. Chicago is just feeling my anit-support because of Obama... sorry guys.

    Damn I want to believe in a president again... BILL COME BACK!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 30, 2009 6:58 PM GMT
    Ryan_Andrew said
    I dont want Chicago to get it because I don't agree with Obama's priorities. I feel like he is just repaying political favors and its getting old. I want a public health care option. Chicago is just feeling my anit-support because of Obama... sorry guys.

    Heads of State of the other 3 countries vying for the Olympics are all showing up in person in Denmark. Barack will be on the ground in Denmark for a total of 4 hours. What's the deal?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 30, 2009 7:27 PM GMT


    QUOTE AUTHOR GOES HEREAnd Chicagoans, why are some of you opposed to this? I know there are some worries over costs, but do you realize the construction projects/skyscrapers that will pop up before and after the games? In addition, the tourism, national attention, and the image of the city will change forever.


    For me it's a tough one between Rio and Chi-town.


    There are several reasons to be opposed to the Olympics in Chicago. First off, the infrastructure cannot handle it. The mass transit system sucks big time, even the subway that should whisk people from O'Hare to downtown. We might have 7 years to fix it, but that brings us to the second problem.

    Corruption. We do have some clean politicians from Chicago, such as the current Governor of Illinois and, of course, the President. But the mayor surrounds himself with henchmen, some of whom have already bought parcels of land upon which the Olympic Village is destined to be built. Is corruption any worse among Rio, Madrid or Tokyo? Dunno the answer, it might be pervasive. But it is certainly rampant in this town. The revitalization of the infrastructure will be very welcome, but Illinois Repugs control the highway rebuilding firms and they were in bed with Blagojevich. The costs might be astronomical.

    Finally, your analysis of the result from the Games is dubious. The short term effects will certainly be profound, but has Atlanta's image really improved since it hosted the Games?

    On the plus side, we did a fine job with the Gay Games and I will be the first to tell you that Chicago in the summer, along the lakefront, is a sublime experience. That fact (opinion) alone is enough to warrant having the Games here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 30, 2009 7:32 PM GMT
    1969er said
    Ryan_Andrew said
    I dont want Chicago to get it because I don't agree with Obama's priorities. I feel like he is just repaying political favors and its getting old. I want a public health care option. Chicago is just feeling my anit-support because of Obama... sorry guys.

    Heads of State of the other 3 countries vying for the Olympics are all showing up in person in Denmark. Barack will be on the ground in Denmark for a total of 4 hours. What's the deal?


    Last I heard the other 3 werent imbattled with getting a Public Health Care Option with their opposing party or having an internal party conflict with members of their own party. Thats the problem I have.
  • Mepark

    Posts: 806

    Sep 30, 2009 7:33 PM GMT
    Isn't Atlanta and the Atlanta region the fastest growing in the entire country?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 30, 2009 7:41 PM GMT
    They had this fun "walk through this thingy and press a button if you want the 'lympics in chicago" a couple years ago - i pressed the button!

    Hell YES do i want the 'lympics in chicago!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 02, 2009 4:26 PM GMT
    I'm going to repost what I put on CNN just a few minuets ago and really I think of no better way to sum up my feeling on a host of issues. Now, I'm praying Madrid wins.

    "I’m glad that Chicago didn’t get past the first round. That city needs to, rather SHOULD OF, spent that money it spent on trying to get the Olympics in the first place on providing better saftey for its schools and the kids that go to them. Im pretty sure seeing that video of the poor kid get beat up in such a brutal and savage way didn’t play on their mind? And how much money did we as a nation spend in sending Obama and Mrs. Obama to lobby for Chicago? He wont sign on to a health care bill that adds to the defictes but its sure okay to spend money to fly, transport, personnal & other resources to support their visit to Denmark? And while he is out repaying political favors, people are going bankrupt from their medical billsm, dying in hospitals because they have no way to pay for their medical care, and our troops still await him to make a descision in reguards to Afganistan. Mr. President, start acting like a president… get back home, put your democrats in line, give us a public health care option and listen to your generals on the ground and give them the extra support they need now! As a proud Democrat that believes you have a chance to make real change and a real difference (and btw, that didnt vote for you), don’t lose the chance infront of you. No one more than myself wants to see our troops come home but so long as they are on the ground give them everything they neeed or bring them home."
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Oct 02, 2009 4:58 PM GMT
    I had a feeling that Rio would be picked mostly just because the games had never been held in South America. Personally, I think Obama's campaigning for the games to be held in Chicago hurt their chances more than helped. Not that the world doesn't like Obama, as they seem to like him very much, but I just have a feeling the Olympic committee didn't want to be seen as favoring the U.S. and Obama's appearance sort of magnified the chances of that happening. I think we would have had a better chance if Obama had taken a bit of a lower profile on the matter.

    I do feel bad for the Chicagoans who had their hopes up. I lived in Los Angeles during the 1984 Summer Olympics and that was so exciting and so much fun.
  • Mepark

    Posts: 806

    Oct 02, 2009 5:04 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidI had a feeling that Rio would be picked mostly just because the games had never been held in South America. Personally, I think Obama's campaigning for the games to be held in Chicago hurt their chances more than helped. Not that the world doesn't like Obama, as they seem to like him very much, but I just have a feeling the Olympic committee didn't want to be seen as favoring the U.S. and Obama's appearance sort of magnified the chances of that happening. I think we would have had a better chance if Obama had taken a bit of a lower profile on the matter.

    I do feel bad for the Chicagoans who had their hopes up. I lived in Los Angeles during the 1984 Summer Olympics and that was so exciting and so much fun.


    Didn't every other president or head of state appeal or "beg" for their vote? It's simple, the Asian members voted for Tokyo, Europe's' (the largest of the bloc) voted for Madrid, South America and perhaps even Africa went for Rio. That left us to ourselves.

    Rio is great though, I'd love to go.
  • Puppy80

    Posts: 451

    Oct 02, 2009 5:06 PM GMT
    Don't count Chicago out. 2020! 2020! 2020!
  • KepaArg

    Posts: 1721

    Oct 02, 2009 5:17 PM GMT
    I was kind of wondering how Chicago even made the list. To me it was the only city of the 4 that lacked any real Cultural or Historical significance.

    I was actually rooting for Japan! Since my grandma is from there!

    But in the end I´m happy Rio won! I think it´s long over due that us in Latin America can host and showcase to the World we put on a great Olympic event and show! China had their chance and now through Brasil the rest of America Latina gets ours!

    (^_^)
  • Mepark

    Posts: 806

    Oct 02, 2009 5:29 PM GMT
    Puppy80 saidDon't count Chicago out. 2020! 2020! 2020!


    Forget that. Detroit and Windsor need to do a joint bid. That would be a first, and "firsts" seem to get votes.
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    Oct 02, 2009 5:43 PM GMT
    I think the US has been host too often. There are lots of countries in the world, spread it around.
  • KepaArg

    Posts: 1721

    Oct 02, 2009 5:44 PM GMT
    Timberoo saidI think the US has been host too often. There are lots of countries in the world, spread it around.


    Agreed!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 02, 2009 5:45 PM GMT
    I am glad Rio got it. I think Obama needs to get his ass back in the White House and take care of business instead of making his presidency one big gala.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 02, 2009 5:54 PM GMT
    It was Rio's turn. US hosts too many times, we just had the games in China and will be in London in 2012. Cool, this is another reason to go visit Brazil. icon_cool.gif
  • KepaArg

    Posts: 1721

    Oct 02, 2009 5:57 PM GMT
    SexySwimmer saidIt was Rio's turn. US hosts too many times, we just had the games in China and will be in London in 2012. Cool, this is another reason to go visit Brazil. icon_cool.gif


    Yes it´s deserved! I'll be hitting up Ipanema next weekend and hope the party as begun! icon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 02, 2009 6:10 PM GMT
    QUOTE AUTHOR GOES HEREI was kind of wondering how Chicago even made the list. To me it was the only city of the 4 that lacked any real Cultural or Historical significance.


    Chicago may not be as well known, but it hardly lacks in either cultural or historical significance, and after Rio (which hands down has the best setting) would have certainly provided the most attractive venue with it's lack-front beaches backed by the city skyline.
  • KepaArg

    Posts: 1721

    Oct 02, 2009 6:21 PM GMT
    wrerick said
    QUOTE AUTHOR GOES HEREI was kind of wondering how Chicago even made the list. To me it was the only city of the 4 that lacked any real Cultural or Historical significance.


    Chicago may not be as well known, but it hardly lacks in either cultural or historical significance, and after Rio (which hands down has the best setting) would have certainly provided the most attractive venue with it's lack-front beaches backed by the city skyline.


    Well I did Google pictures of Chicago, but still not sold. It looks like pretty city in the spring/summer pictures, but it just doesn´t have the ''WOW'' factor to me. I have been to the other nominated cities and would still have prefered any of others over chicago! In the end if wasn´t Tokyo the right city won in my book! icon_smile.gif jeje
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 02, 2009 6:21 PM GMT
    wrerick said
    QUOTE AUTHOR GOES HEREI was kind of wondering how Chicago even made the list. To me it was the only city of the 4 that lacked any real Cultural or Historical significance.


    Chicago may not be as well known, but it hardly lacks in either cultural or historical significance, and after Rio (which hands down has the best setting) would have certainly provided the most attractive venue with it's lack-front beaches backed by the city skyline.


    ... just to recap, Chicago got the US bid because of 2 events:

    . San Francisco dropped out in 2006 due to the 49ers stadium deal fell through.
    . Los Angeles hosted the games twice in 1932 & 1984 - so I think by default, Chicago got it.

    . But it was South America turn in 2016 anyway, it's all good. icon_biggrin.gif
    . I agreed that Rio has the most beautiful/attractive setting of the 4 cities.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 02, 2009 6:26 PM GMT
    Chicago needs to take care of its kids and make their schools safer. Seriously... you don't think the video of that kid being beaten to a pulp didnt play in their minds? All that energy, time, money spent while school kids are dying. Seriously... Im glad it didn't get it. I was rooting for Madrid but I guess Rio won't be all that bad either. Plus, Im sorry but I really hope this is a hint to Obama... fix your shit at home already. grow a set and get a public option done. It should be a wake up call for him that his Madonna status is over.
  • KepaArg

    Posts: 1721

    Oct 02, 2009 6:39 PM GMT
    SexySwimmer said
    wrerick said
    QUOTE AUTHOR GOES HEREI was kind of wondering how Chicago even made the list. To me it was the only city of the 4 that lacked any real Cultural or Historical significance.


    Chicago may not be as well known, but it hardly lacks in either cultural or historical significance, and after Rio (which hands down has the best setting) would have certainly provided the most attractive venue with it's lack-front beaches backed by the city skyline.


    ... just to recap, Chicago got the US bid because of 2 things:

    . San Francisco dropped out in 2006 due to the 49ers stadium deal.
    . Los Angeles hosted the games twice in 1934 & 1984 - so I think by default, Chicago got it.
    . But it was South America turn in 2016 anyway, it's all good. icon_biggrin.gif
    . I agreed that Rio has the most beautiful/attractive setting of the 4 cities.


    Cool thanks for the info! Sure Rio is pretty city with it´s charms...I think it´s been noted they have alot of work in terms of infrastructure and security issues (being surrounding by villas and all to common gun related violence), but if they can pull off the World Cup in 2014 it should be a nice indication of things to come in 2016.

    FYI: I have been to Rio a handful of times, while I tend to more careful there then I am in either Buenos Aires or even Sao Paulo; Rio got a great energy, spirit and the samba. The Cariocas are an amazing and attractive group of people, and come on the beaches!!!!! icon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 02, 2009 6:54 PM GMT
    KepaArg saidI was kind of wondering how Chicago even made the list. To me it was the only city of the 4 that lacked any real Cultural or Historical significance.

    I was actually rooting for Japan! Since my grandma is from there!

    (^_^)


    Are you serious?? Chicago is one of the world's great cities. You obviously haven't been.

    Chicago has three great schools of architecture, an incredible skyline overlooking lake Michigan.
    Chicago has wonderful museums and cultural centers. The Art Institute is considered one of the best Art Schools in the world and houses the second largest Impressionist collections outside of France.
    Chicago has two of the best Univs in the country, Northwestern Univ and Univ of Chicago (Univ of Chicago has produced more Nobel Prizer winners than any other Univ in the World)
    The Chicago Symphony Orchestra is World renowned.
    Chicago is the third largest City in the US

    I think it was a miss not selecting Chicago, I'm not disappointed that Rio was selected. Chicago was just my first Choice.

    CityChicagoMontage.jpg


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 02, 2009 7:01 PM GMT
    RowBuddy saidI'm torn. I love Chicago summers! I really want to be able to take 2 weeks off work and go to all the events I love. I know this is likely my only chance in my lifetime to see the Olympics since I am not a world traveler.

    Frankly I have a lot of questions and so far nothing I have heard from the city answers those. I just hear how good its supposed to be for the city. How good? In what way? Will things get better for us? Will taxes go down or up? Is this benefiting the people of chicago, or just the people with all the money? Most people I know have more of an attitude "how can i take advantage of this and get rich quick" rather than care about being an example or representative city of the US.

    Taxes As a owner resident my property value will increase. However taxes will likely increase. We already have the highest tax rate in the country. Where that money goes is a mystery as many basic services are poor compared to other major cities. Will we end up picking up the slack if people that say they will back us dont follow thru? We are in an economic downtown and maybe those business will not be able to come thru. Will taxes go back down after its paid for?

    Public transportation is unreliable and slow and more expensive compared to other cities I have been to yet they give almost everyone free rides, seniors, veterans, students. What happened to making things profitable? Are discounts not enough? Will the infrastructure be able to take additional trains safely without burdening people who will likely need to work those two weeks?

    Traffic Chicago is rated one of the most stressful cities in the country on a couple lists at least. Traffic is named one of those stressors. There is no easy way around Chicago, you have to drive thru it to get north to south or vice versa. Additional congestion is only going to happen since there are no hotels on the South side of Chicago where opening ceremonies are to take place and many of the big events. Other venues which will hold gymnastics are used to hold events that are big on a regional level, but not an international level. I can't imagine McCormick place cramming people in and out for two weeks. Traffic on Lake Shore Drive will be terrible when it is already difficult to impossible to get past on rush hour.

    Public saftey Some of the events, including opening ceremonies, are going to happen in one of the worst areas of town where nobody in their right mind would venture out at night. I work right next door and I NEVER stay here past dark and several people I know have had guns held to their head because gangstas from neighborhoods around here see the residents and students around University of Chicago and Hyde Park as easy, rich targets. Imagine the feeding frenzy they would have on actually rich, non english speaking, gullible tourists! Will security be enough to protect dumb tourists who don't know they are walking into an area where there are weekly murders, rapes and aggravated assaults and robberies? Even if there are stepped up patrols what will the city to do to fix the problem and keep those "beautified" areas from turning back into trashy areas?

    Temporary stuctures Several existing venues will be converted to house things like gymnastics, track and field. Some new structures will be built for swimming. But a lot of structures will be temporary. Vollyball is huge here in summer and Chicago hosts many summer tournaments. Why not build a permeant structure? The existing Lincoln Park lagoon is supposed to be ripped up for white water rafting. Will it be put back? What will happen to all those rowers that are losing their home? The temporary rowing venue in the Monroe harbor will suffer from terrible cross wind that no rower in their right mind would consider a fair course. After the closing ceremonies it will go back to being a harbor. Wont another permeant rowing venue in Lincoln Park make more sense so Chicago can continue to host yearly events? Wouldnt the white water rafting course 70 miles away in South Bend, IN be suitable enough since its already there and already used for Olympic trials? That is just one example. The Great Expo of the late 1800's was built with many temporary structures that are all gone (except one building) Its all forgotten. No legacy. Just an empty park with weeds and a Midway that separates the University of Chicago from a street known for guns, drugs and prostitution.


    It just seems to me that the Olympics should take place in a city that is representative of the Ideals of the country hosting the games. Right now I think Chicago needs major work in a lot of areas. Our politicians are corrupt, our demographics are either very very poor or very rich with very little in between but struggling to get by pay check to pay check, we are stressed out, overworked, underpaid, overtaxed, unhealthy midwesterners. Hmm, I guess that makes us pretty representative of most the USA though. Kinda sad to think about, but very true.




    All of these concerns can be said of any city. There is no perfect city in the world. If we only looked at problems as a reason not to do something then we would never do anything.

    In every city I've lived in it's the same story. Anytime there is an opportunity to do something big there are opponents who say, it cost too much, or it's too congested or the crime rate is too high. or, well, it goes on and on.

    I think you do great things in spite of the obstacles. That's what makes a great city even better.

    I've heard many bad things about Rio, the crime rate, the poverty, the racism, the congestion, etc. But I think something like the Olympics will help the country overcome some of these issues.

    Let's stop being so, so negative about everything and try lifting each other and our great cities up for a change.