7
Chi-town bummed? You?
Is it really a surprise that Chicago didn't win the bid for the 2016 Olympics? Yes, according to the odds-makers. And this photograph says it was shocking to some people of Chicago. But there's also quite a bit of relief that the city lost.
Brian Fadden, a manager at Chicago's Buddy Guy's Legends blues club, said winning the Olympic Games would "have been good and bad. Some things would have been taken care of quicker than they would (otherwise) have as far as infrastructure and whatnot, but ... I don't think they needed it. It would just cause more problems."
The Olympics would have lasted 17 days, he noted, but "who knows what we would have had to deal with after that. I mean, taxpayers are probably going to end up paying for this."
David Hoffmann, the head of Arts and Artisans gallery on Chicago's North Michigan Avenue, argued that anti-American sentiment fueled by the global recession and conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan may have worked against the city's bid.
"I'm delighted," he said. "For one month of good sales in our business, we would have had every landlord in town try to really do us a number on our next lease negotiations."
Or how about this piece from the Washington Post?
The bid for a Chicago Olympics was to put a large American city, and probably the state and federal governments as well, deeply into hock constructing velodromes and the like, in return for the thrill of watching a bunch of steroid consumers try to break ephemeral world records in obscure sports.
Geesh. Although, unfortunately there's some truth to it, both financially and otherwise. But I don't want to jump on the downer train and say the Olympics are worthless. I have fond memories of the Lake Placid games, the LA games. I worked at the Atlanta Olympics for NBC, and aside from almost getting blown up by a pipe bomb, it was thrilling to be a part of a world event like that.
The Olympics still have their place. Professional athletes, steroids, the IOC's behavior, too much corporate involvement and other things have ruined the games in some ways. They're most likely a bad financial investment too. But there's still something compelling about the world getting together to compete, and it seems a lot more fun when it's in your own backyard.
What's your take? Do you want your country, your city to host the Olympics? Or is it a tainted affair not worth the hassle and expense?
I am really glad that Chicago did not receive the selection because I feel that the city is just not ready to accept such a responsibility. As a Chicagoan, the people of the city would have foot the bill, there are still neighborhoods still in turmoil, and the Chicago Cubs still haven't made it to the World Series. Maybe if Michael Jordan would still play for the Bulls, we would have had a better chance, but this result would be better for the city overall and for the future.
As far as Rio, I am happy that they receive the nod because it may help their economy overall, and beside Brazil's economy is booming at the moment. Just hoping that it become another Montreal - a city after the Games that is broke!
Not bummed at all. As a proud citizen of the US I am aware that we have hosted the Olympics many times. I lived in a host city and am grateful for the chance I had to see the world's best.
It is time for S. America. Though it would be impossible for me to go to Rio, I think it should be the host. Chicago in the summertime can be as uncomfortable as Atlanta! Maybe later, Chicago.
Go Rio!
I don't really mind that Chicago lost, especially not to Rio. I wasn't aware that South America NEVER hosted an Olympics. Good for them. If Chi-town had to lose to anybody, I'm glad it was Rio. Plus, we may see some SWEET Carnival stuff at Opening Ceremonies!
It's clear from the past: This is a losing proposition financially and the only benefit is an increase in foreign trade with the city - and that only benefits smaller countries. Chitown is better off cleaning up it's slums and infrastructure with the funds!
