|
2016 Olympic Bids
Should this be in News & Politics or Entertainment? I think it could go in either but I'll just start it in my own forum because that's how I am. I can move if y'all think it's stupid here.
In June the IOC narrowed the candidate pool to four cities. Here are the cities with the rationale/DL on each one:
Chicago, USA - it's seen as obligatory that the IOC give the US the Olympics approximately every 20 years or so, because the IOC is so beholden to US dollars to fund themselves and the Olympics as a whole. The last US summer games were Atlanta 1996 and the last US Winter games were Salt Lake 2002. The last summer to summer gap was shorter than the one we've experience now - Los Angeles 1984 to Atlanta was only 12 years. Also, Chicago has prepared a technically strong bid that emphasizes a lot of the things the IOC claims it wants - in particular, a temporary, low-impact stadium. The IOC no longer wants cities to put themselves in crazy debt to build new infrastructure. However, despite this mantra, they often seem to favor really dramatic structures/stadiums - so can we really believe them? Also, the problem with megacities like Chicago, NYC, London, etc., is that it can be hard to have the Olympic Village & venues all close together and in democracies that can't just condemn half the city to build a village a la Beijing, that's a problem - it's a major reason why NYC lost the 2012 bid, for example - things were too spread out. Chicago seems to have addressed these concerns.
At the same time, the IOC still has a bitter taste in its mouth about the Atlanta games (which it hated) and anti-American sentiment has probably grown in the IOC since then. The Chicago bid also rated low in non-technical aspects and is beginning to encounter some opposition from city residents - which is a MAJOR problem in the eyes of the IOC. Again, it's hard to get unanimous consensus on things like that in a democracy, so what can you do?
Madrid, Spain - Madrid was a finalist for the 2012 games, so that's a good sign for them - cities that have experience bidding often do well the second or third time around. The IOC was and still is in love with the 1992 Barcelona games (still considered by many to be one of the, if not THE, best Olympics ever), so they have confidence in Spain's ability to pull it off. Madrid's technical bid is incredibly strong thus far.
On the negative side for Madrid, they hosted in 1992, which for a smaller country like Spain, seems really soon to have another games. Also, and even more problematic, the 2012 games are also in Europe, and having the games on the same continent twice in a row is pretty unheard of in recent Olympic times. Complicating matters further, the 2014 Winter games are also arguably in Europe - in Russia (but a part of Russia you *might* consider to be Asia). So do the 2014 games prove that location doesn't matter and Madrid has a chance, or do the 2014 games hurt Madrid even more - leading to THREE games in Europe in a row? One telling sign is that Paris - which has been desperate for the Olympics for a while now - decided to bide their time and not apply for 2016 because they figure it was a lost cause. They are now focusing on a timeline somewhere in the 2020s.
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil - This bid is clearly a sentimental favorite. It is a big competitor for Chicago insofar as it's a Western hemisphere nation, but is from South America, which has NEVER hosted an Olympics. So it would get the "Western Hemisphere" rotation out of the way (previously Western Hemisphere basically meant US or Canada, or of course, 1968 Mexico City), but do so in a way that also would meet the IOC's stated goal of getting the games to both South America and Africa. The sentimentality of a Rio games is indicated by the fact that the IOC selected Rio as a finalist over the Doha, Qatar bid - although Doha had a higher bid score and is clearly stronger in terms of infrastructure and financing than Rio (not to say that Doha doesn't have a lot of problems, for example, climate, geopolitics, etc., that really inhibited its technically strong bid). Brazil also has a great sports history which is key, because a lot of time the "underdog" bidding nation doesn't really have a history of much sports success.
Rio is seemingly weaker in a couple of areas though - for example in terms of how many international sports events have been hosted there in the past. They did a good job with the 2007 Pan American games, and they have the World Cup in 2014, which will be a great test run for them if they get the games (but then again - could that inhibit them? spreading themselves too thin or something?). Also transportation is a major issue and at the 2007 Pan Americans that was a major issue - getting around the city can be difficult. They will REALLY need to invest in infrastructure and transportation to get the games. Which could help or hurt - the IOC claims it doesn't want cities to break themselves to pay for the games, but they also like going places where they can leave an "Olympic legacy" of beneficial infrastructure that will benefit the city residents for years to come.
Tokyo, Japan - Tokyo is the frontrunner in terms of bid strength. They had the highest-rated bid of any of the candidate cities and are using the same consultant that helped plan Sydney, Turin, Beijing and Sochi's winning bids. Japan has a proven track record, having hosted the summer games once and the winter games twice. There is very little doubt that Tokyo can host world-class sports events. The 1998 Winter Games don't seem to be too close for comfort to the 2016 games. However, there is some question as to whether the Beijing games might be "too close" and if the games should have at least one more continental rotation before returning to Asia (there are certainly many precedents for returning that soon to the same continent, but the IOC claims it REALLY REALLY wants more geographic diversity in hosting). The bid also proposes to revitalize a run-down area of the city, which has appealed to the IOC in the past (1992 Barcelona, 2012 London, and arguably, 2008 Beijing, if you want to drink the Chinese government's Kool-Aid).
Possible negatives include the building of a huge permanent Olympic stadium (which the IOC has claimed it doesn't want, although it still keeps choosing bids that have them). Also they're building it in one of Tokyo's only major parks. OK, so going along with the park thing, Tokyo is (arguably) not an especially beautiful or environmental city - it has a bad rep with some as a "concrete jungle" that lacks the kinds of stunning vistas the IOC and its good friend NBC love so much. Tokyo is trying to address this by using the games to create a legacy of green space in the city, but will it be enough? Furthermore, like many democracies, Tokyo residents aren't unanimously in favor of the Olympics, which can be a perceived problem.
OMG. I am pitiful.
What do y'all think??? I am personally kind of rooting for Rio just because I think it would be wonderful for the city. My close second choice would be Chicago though! I personally think Madrid is screwed by London 2012 and I'm not a huge fan of the Tokyo bid - although I do think I like their logo best.
Last edited by breathesgelatin; 08-25-2008 at 01:40 AM.
|
Linear Mode
