Chicagoist: Olympic Bid Going Strong

bbulman

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 17:54:28 -0600

Hey Chicagoist - Chicago is no longer an Applicant City. We are now a Candidate City. The 2016 logo you display is old news, might want to grab the new logo...

Scooter Libbby

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 17:25:43 -0600

There are also rumors that the Chinese don't want Tokyo to get the Olympics just 8 years after theirs in Beijing. Especially if there are problems next month, either political or environmental. The Chinese definitely don't want to be showed up by the Japanese, they still are incredibly bitter over WWII. Not only would Madrid follow London by just 4 years, but Barcelona isn't that long ago either. That leaves Chicago vs. Rio. Brazil will have the World Cup in 2014 & many think that works against Rio, people think Brazil doesn't have the money for both, although they may become an oil exporter in a few years. So it comes down to Rio, with its beaches & mountains or Chicago, the city that bribes better than any place on Earth. Bribes trump beaches any time!

Thunderbelly

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 15:48:41 -0600

Seems to me a down economy for real estate would be the perfect time for the city to round up land Tower. Sure beats buying land at its peak value.

Tower18

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:13:41 -0600

schwerve, while that's true, I don't agree with government rounding up land on speculation, especially in a down economy for real estate.

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 12:37:43 -0600

You know what, Chicago is a relatively safe city. Sure, Tokyo has us beat on crime (who doesn't Tokyo beat on this) and reliability of transportation. But is the IOC really going to award the olympics to an asian city so soon after China? Madrid has great transporttaion from what I've heard, but it has had problems with terrorisim and violence in the recent past as well. Also, having the olympics in madrid four years after london makes little sense. That leaves either Rio or Chicago as the likely contenders. I think Rio has the edge because the olympics have never been in a south american country. However, how can anyone really argue Rio is safer than Chicago? Moreover, our overall infrastructure, while dilapidated and in need of serious attention, still surpases Rio's. I understand many chicagoans don't want the olympics for a variety of reasons, but making our city sound like a decrepit demilitiarized zone is simply unfair. If you want to understand what a shitty public transportation system and unsafe streets are like, take a trip to Detroit, Milwaukee, or the majority of other rust belt cities.

schwerve

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 11:46:10 -0600

well michael reese isn't a prospering riverfront neighborhood, it's an extinct hospital, they're not displacing people and it's not like that land isn't valuable even without the olympics.

Tower18

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 11:22:06 -0600

That whole thing makes me very nervous. Back in the 1990's, Detroit evicted and/or tore down an entire prospering riverfront neighborhood on speculation, because they hoped to convince permanent casinos to open there. 10 years later, the casinos never opened. Now 20 years later, they opened, but nowhere near this location. Today, this neighborhood is still a bulldozed, vacant wasteland. And for what?