# Has Chicago's 2016 Olympic bid done more harm than good to the city's image?



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

I think the main reason why Chicago didn't get it, is becuase the USA had had it a few times before, and I guess they wanted to give someone else the chance. The main test is, can you pill them off with out it going wrong...


----------



## DFDalton (Jul 16, 2009)

poshbakerloo said:


> I think the main reason why Chicago didn't get it, is becuase the USA had had it a few times before, and I guess they wanted to give someone else the chance.


London _alone_ has been selected to host the Summer Games *4 times* (1944 was cancelled for obvious reasons). Including the 2012 Games, the city will have hosted the Summer Olympics 3 times.

Since the inception of the modern Olympics, the U.S. - with a land area, economy, and population roughly equal to western Europe in its entirety - has hosted the Summer Games 4 times in three different cities. By 2020, they will not have hosted in nearly a quarter century.

Europe as a whole has hosted a total of 17 Summer Olympics, not including those 2 cancelled by war - which were also scheduled for European cities! Clearly this displays a heavy European bias. 

In light of these facts, I reject the notion that the U.S. has hosted too many times. If we accept the supposition that the IOC ought to distribute the games more fairly, Europe should not host again during this century.


----------



## RawLee (Jul 9, 2007)

DFDalton said:


> Europe should not host again during this century.


Well,the western half of the continent had all,take the chance from them for 200 years,but dont punish the other half for it! We want it in 2020,because the 1920 olimpics were taken from us with force,and I hope will do everything to get it!


----------



## OtAkAw (Aug 5, 2004)

We can always hope that there will never be a time when countries decide that hosting an Olympics is practically worthless and mindless spending and NO ONE will actually even try to bid. 

Seeing all this "it should be here", "it should be there" crap is mind-numbingly irritating already.


----------



## shadyunltd (May 1, 2006)

As long as Rogge is president, you'll never see the Olympics in the USA again, that's for sure.


----------



## secondcity1 (Dec 28, 2006)

No, the reason why Chicago lost the bid was because of the friction between the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) and International Olympic Committee (IOC). The Chicago bid was mostly plagued by the revenue-sharing dispute.

Earlier this year, some info close to the IOC said it was Chicago to lose . However, Chicago lost the momentum after negotiation for broadcast rights between the USOC & IOC was thrown into disarray.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-olympics-hersh-04-oct04,0,7643606.column



poshbakerloo said:


> I think the main reason why Chicago didn't get it, is becuase the USA had had it a few times before, and I guess they wanted to give someone else the chance. The main test is, can you pill them off with out it going wrong...


----------



## dnobsemajdnob (Jan 29, 2009)

Chicago would have been a nice place to have the Olympics, as would other recent winners and losers (i.e., London, Beijing, NY, Paris, Madrid and Tokyo).

However, Rio -- like Beijing -- deserved it most.


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

who gives a shit


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

dnobsemajdnob said:


> The problem with Chicago's bid is that city leaders kept saying that a successful bid was essential to make the city "international". * No offense to Chicago, but people in real "international cities" like San Francisco, Barcelona, Berlin, etc*. (let alone London, NY, Paris, etc.) don't say that.


What makes San Francisco or any other city on your list more or less international?


----------



## crawford (Dec 9, 2003)

chicagogeorge said:


> What makes San Francisco or any other city on your list more or less international?


For real? 

How about:

1. San Francisco has a much higher proportion of foreign-born than Chicago

2. San Francisco is sigificantly more diverse than Chicago (race and national origin)

3. San Francisco sits on the Pacific Rim, which along with the Atlantic Coast, and the Southern Border, tends to be much more international and outward-looking than the nation's interior.

4. San Francisco tends to attract far more cosmopolitan and international elites than Chicacago (yes, difficult to quantify, but almost certainly true).

5. San Francisco has an iconic global image (Golden Gate, cable cars, hills, earthquakes, maybe Chinatown and Alcatraz), and Chicago doesn't.

And if you were to compare Chicago to cities like New York and London, the differences in levels of international feel would be even greater.


----------



## city3456789 (Aug 4, 2009)

crawford said:


> For real?
> 
> How about:
> 
> ...


Chicago is way more diverse than SF.


----------



## crawford (Dec 9, 2003)

city3456789 said:


> Chicago is way more diverse than SF.


No, it isn't. Not even close.

CA is waaaaaaay more diverse than IL, and this is certainly shown in major metropolitan areas in either state.


----------



## city3456789 (Aug 4, 2009)

crawford said:


> No, it isn't. Not even close.
> 
> CA is waaaaaaay more diverse than IL, and this is certainly shown in major metropolitan areas in either state.


Yes, but you said the cities


Races in Chicago:

Black (36.8%) 
White Non-Hispanic (31.3%) 
Hispanic (26.0%) 
Other race (13.6%) 
Two or more races (2.9%) 
Chinese (1.1%) 
Filipino (1.0%) 
Asian Indian (0.9%) 
American Indian (0.7%) 
Other Asian (0.5%) 

vs.

Races in San Francisco:

White Non-Hispanic (43.6%) 
Chinese (19.6%) 
Hispanic (14.1%) 
Black (7.8%) 
Other race (6.5%) 
Filipino (5.2%) 
Two or more races (4.3%) 
Other Asian (1.5%) 
Japanese (1.5%) 
Vietnamese (1.4%) 
American Indian (1.2%) 
Korean (1.0%) 
Asian Indian (0.7%)


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

As a marketing guy, I'd say bidding was a win for Chicago, despite the loss. 

Ink is ink, as the saying goes. Having your name out there, often with photos and discussions of your attributes, can go a long way. 

I thought about this after Seattle's WTO trade event in 1999. Tens of thousands of protesters shut parts of Downtown and interrupted the actual meetings. Most countries had contingents, and the protests plastered most countries' news for days. The biggest story was that Seattle was under-prepared to host the meeting, and handled security poorly. Many local booster types thought our reputation was ruined. 

I disagreed then, and still do now. The average newspaper reader in Bangalore or Berlin might have heard about Seattle somewhere, but probably didn't remember much, or anything. But for a few days, they saw vivid, memorable pictures of protests, often contrasting with nicer things -- prosperous-looking storefronts, white holiday lighting, and introductions about how it was all occurring in this scenic city that's otherwise known for music, coffee, and certain companies. Ink was ink...the protests created an impression of Seattle with people who didn't have one before. 

Being a well-known city requires two things above all: 1. name recognition, and 2. images/impressions that go along with the name. My impression is that Seattle is doing pretty well in both regards for a US metro of four million. Even if you disagree about that, I think it's clear that we're doing better than we were before WTO. 

Chicago is bigger and older, and one event won't have the same effect it would have in a smaller city. But the same priciples apply. 

More perspective: The world was looking at four cities for the Olympics. How many people are forming opinions about Madrid right now? Not me. The biggest effect might be that people in the four cities closely watched the competition. Otherwise, the world paid attention but probably not closely, and focus was spread among four cities.


----------



## Shera (Oct 11, 2009)

Brazil deserves it so much anyways. It's a country well-known for dominance in soccer. Latin America deserves the Olympics after not hosting it for decades. The last time was in Mexico City in 1968. South America, with a population of over 400 million people, actually *never *hosted the Olympics, Summer or Winter.


----------



## Alphaville (Nov 28, 2007)

dnobsemajdnob said:


> The problem with Chicago's bid is that city leaders kept saying that a successful bid was essential to make the city "international". No offense to Chicago, but people in real "international cities" like San Francisco, Barcelona, Berlin, etc. (let alone London, NY, Paris, etc.) don't say that.


As someone completely unbias (i'm from Australia), I can safely say Chicago is up there with SF, Barcelona and Berlin.

If you don't consider Chicago to be an international city, then you are living under a rock.


----------



## dnobsemajdnob (Jan 29, 2009)

Alphaville said:


> As someone completely unbias (i'm from Australia), I can safely say Chicago is up there with SF, Barcelona and Berlin.
> 
> If you don't consider Chicago to be an international city, then you are living under a rock.


I have lived all over the world, Australia, Canada, the US and Europe, and I nor anyone I know have ever regarded Chicago as a truly international city like San Francisco is, for example.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

eagleguy said:


> As I always sayd...Chicago is the best City on Earth


Earth isn't that bad...


----------



## city3456789 (Aug 4, 2009)

Chicago is the Berlin of America(in a good way)


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

I don't remember anything about not getting the Olympics hurting the "psyche" of cities like New York, Paris, or Madrid and several other cities that never got them.


----------



## PortoNuts (Apr 26, 2008)

Chicago didn't seem so enthusiastic about its bid as the other bidding cities, but that's just what I think.


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

Chicago was unenthusiastic, its planned venues uninspiring, and it was on the wrong continent. But I don't blame Chicago. Without the overspending paternalistic national government involvement that the I.O.C. craves, what chance did Chicago have? At the end of the day, the U.S. is unwelcome in a process that demands a Stalinist approach to putting on the games.


----------



## MiamiMan305 (Oct 24, 2009)

I honestly doubt that most people even know about that Chicago had a bid for the olympics. You would be horrified of most people's ignorance when it comes to current events and geography. 

In my opinon, as someone not from there, it certiantly has not harmed Chicago's image. To be honest most people on the east coast don't give much thought to Chicago to begin with. I personally would like to visit it seems like a really interesting urban place.


----------



## Shera (Oct 11, 2009)

Yeah, point taken well, but point aside, it seems that London deserved it even less. London already had it a couple of times before, so why should the same city deserve it once again, for 2012? 

It should have been Rio de Janeiro in 2012, not 2016. And then some other city for 2016, not London or Chicago.


----------



## hoosier (Apr 11, 2007)

eagleguy said:


> As I always sayd...Chicago is the best City on Earth, with or without the Olympics..


Spoken like a true homer. You know nothing about the outside world if you believe that.


----------



## hoosier (Apr 11, 2007)

desertpunk said:


> Chicago was unenthusiastic, its planned venues uninspiring, and it was on the wrong continent. But I don't blame Chicago. Without the overspending paternalistic national government involvement that the I.O.C. craves, what chance did Chicago have? At the end of the day, the U.S. is unwelcome in a process that demands a Stalinist approach to putting on the games.


Bullshit sour grapes. The IOC wanted a guarantee that the the federal government would cover any cost overruns and the U.S. wouldn't give them that.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

hoosier said:


> Spoken like a true homer. You know nothing about the outside world if you believe that.


Your first sentence may be true, but the second is a pure wild guess on your part, and probably wrong. There's nothing wrong with knowing many cities but idealizing your own above all others. 

Personally I think many cities are better than my own. But if others don't think like that, so what?


----------



## Shera (Oct 11, 2009)

hoosier said:


> Spoken like a true homer. You know nothing about the outside world if you believe that.


LOL, but who are you to say that?!? I loved Chicago! Chicago was awesome, man! I visited there 2 times and went so many places in Chicago each time. Awesome, man! Only a few parts were not awesome, but who cares, man! Just don't go there when you have millions of other places to go in Chicago, by train or by car! Traffic's not bad in Chicago--not nearly as bad as Washington, D.C., a much smaller city, or Dallas, also a much smaller city, or even Atlanta! There are so many awesome clubs and bars in uptown Chicago, and the city never sleeps there! They stay open till 5am in the morning, fully packed! There are so many rich people living in uptown Chicago it's unbelievable! The metro rail system there is great, and I mean the best of any city in the US (outside of NYC, which might be considered to be the best by many)! Toronto's looked so much like NYC, but there wasn't that much of rail in Toronto anyways. Chicago is also big on sports! 2 baseball teams, football, hockey, and especially basketball! I went there to play sports!

Chicago just seems like a cool, large city that does not have the weird stuff that either LA or NYC have. So many in NYC live in poverty--lots and lots of the Bronx and Brooklyn are in poverty, and also Manhattan. There's lots of other stuff with NYC, which is a 2x bigger city anyways. With LA, it's different--quite different, but the difference is a different kind anyways.



hoosier said:


> Bullshit sour grapes. The IOC wanted a guarantee that the the federal government would cover any cost overruns and the U.S. wouldn't give them that.


Yep, because the U.S. government is under greater "Democractic" pressure, given that the government is "concerned" that the democracy is under economic stress, or actually itself anyways, so it does not want to commit enough now to give guarantees or actually want to spend friviously on Olympic games, rather preferring to pass it on to some other country. I would guess that the government in particular feels economic stress.


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

hoosier said:


> Bullshit sour grapes. The IOC wanted a guarantee that the the federal government would cover any cost overruns and the U.S. wouldn't give them that.


hno:
...Um, isn't that basically what I said? The I.O.C. wants Moscow'80 or Beijing '08 every time. The Ueberroth model got buried with Atlanta'96.


----------



## DFDalton (Jul 16, 2009)

desertpunk said:


> hno:
> ...Um, isn't that basically what I said? The I.O.C. wants Moscow'80 or Beijing '08 every time. The Ueberroth model got buried with Atlanta'96.



I'm going to have to agree with you there. The IOC, despite it's talk about sustainablity and responsible legacy, doesn't care about anything but the two weeks of spectacle. If a third world country wants to bankrupt itself building over-extravagant white elephant sports venues and will gladly run roughshod over its own population to smooth the way for eastern European shot-putters, that's just fine. Safe, enthusiastic, quasi-fascistic ceremony is what the IOC wants. America can't guarantee that level of "perfection" under its current system. Rio will deliver, I'm sure.


----------



## chicagoboulder (Sep 4, 2009)

DFDalton said:


> This is a serious question about a feeling that I have after talking to several colleagues outside of the Chicago area.
> 
> Certainly the last week of the bid, including Obama's "failure" to influence the IOC as seen by the stunning last place finish in the voting and how this was covered in the media, was a complete embarrassment to the city. But even in the months leading up to the vote, negative stories about or taking place in Chicago were highlighted nationally and internationally for how they might influence Chicago's chances to win the games. Stories of gang violence that might have been buried deep in Chicago's newspapers became international reports. Groups such as NoGamesChicago who didn't want the games got an international soap box to highlight Chicago's corruption and cronyism, financial problems, and crime. In contrast, Chicago's 2016 backers' efforts came across as arrogant and, in light of all the crime stories, false.
> 
> ...



The main reason that Rio got the 2016 Olympics is because they have never been held in South America, Chicago would have gotten it had that not been the case. Tokyo has already hosted it, and London should not ever be allowed to host again, as it has been chosen three times. Its time for more cities to have a chance at hosting the greatest sports event in the world.


----------



## Langur (Jan 3, 2008)

I find some of the comments on the previous page baffling. Imo Chicago and San Francisco are about the same in terms of internationalism. They both have lots of recent immigrants and diversity. I don't see either landing a knockout blow on the other on this score. The person that said Chicago was less international than Barcelona or Berlin is wrong imo. If anything the reverse is true. What's so international about Berlin for instance? That is has a lot of Turks? Chicago has larger and more varied minorities imo. Barcelona attracts a lot of other Europeans because of its lifestyle, attractiveness, and opportunities, but again its non-European minorities are relatively small. Chicago is not, perhaps, among the global top five cities for internationalism, but it probably makes the top ten.


----------



## urbanpln (Feb 25, 2006)

Langur said:


> I find some of the comments on the previous page baffling. Imo Chicago and San Francisco are about the same in terms of internationalism. They both have lots of recent immigrants and diversity. I don't see either landing a knockout blow on the other on this score. The person that said Chicago was less international than Barcelona or Berlin is wrong imo. If anything the reverse is true. What's so international about Berlin for instance? That is has a lot of Turks? Chicago has larger and more varied minorities imo. Barcelona attracts a lot of other Europeans because of its lifestyle, attractiveness, and opportunities, but again its non-European minorities are relatively small. Chicago is not, perhaps, among the global top five cities for internationalism, but it probably makes the top ten.


Well said. Most people who make those statements have never been here and are basing their facts on outdated media and pure ignorance. I'm not picking on Berlin or Barcelona but, I've been to both of those cities and loved them. I will always visit them because they are two of my favorite cities (I also have several others). Both cities out performs Chicago in many ways but, I did not think they were more diverse or international by a long margin especially their indigenous population. Chicago is a complicated beast that offers more that many cities that people praise. I do think the city recieved and unfair amount of negative media coverage that probably did not help it's image nationally, especially in the south.


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

The question is whether Chicago should even bother trying again at all. The I.O.C. wants governments to spend a percentage of GDP on huge extravaganzas that do little more than showcase their own megalomania. Why Chicago or anyone else would want to participate in that is beyond me.


----------



## FernandoFG (Oct 13, 2009)

I'm brazilian and I think that Rio isn't prepared to recive a Olympic games, beacuse I can see the problems that my country has, crime, murder, corrupition, education...If you had a bad house with problems would you spend money with a great party to your neighbors?
The bad house is Brazil and the great party summer games.


----------



## Shera (Oct 11, 2009)

Well, 2016 is a long way from now, and perhaps that will help boost Rio's self-esteem. Perhaps esteem one of the things that Rio could use to encourage the lowering of crime and the boosting of good stuff.


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

FernandoFG said:


> I'm brazilian and I think that Rio isn't prepared to recive a Olympic games, beacuse I can see the problems that my country has, crime, murder, corrupition, education...If you had a bad house with problems would you spend money with a great party to your neighbors?
> The bad house is Brazil and the great party summer games.


Rio has a lot of issues but since the Olympics are essentially a sports festival, there's little reason to think that they can't put on an excellent games. And while no city can completely transform itself in 7 years, Rio can do a lot in that time and will be a different place in 2016. How different is up to the people there.


----------

