I was honestly in love with the idea of 2016 being held in Chicago. It would have made getting there and watching much easier than it might be to get to Rio, but realistically, much of the gaff I had heard on Chicago hosting seemed to make sense to me.
For one, the public transportation was credited as not being able to handle the anticipated in flux of people that would enter into the city and being able to move around freely would be key between all the Olympic site/throughout Olympic village.
Secondly, most cities that host (read: all) the Olympics inevitable ending up losing more money than they make. While it seemed like Chicago had garnered quite a bit of funds plus extra to prepare for hosting, I think it was illustrated by all the protesters that Chicago has more pressing problems that their money could go to before hosting. The prestige is nice, but perhaps better living conditions would be nicer.
All of that said, I'm not unhappy with it being in South America for the first time. It's exciting and the weather in Rio in August is supposed to be great according to LRC.
I say Rome would have been a great choice (too bad it wasn't on the list for 2016)! One bazillion amazing, authentic Italian restaurants to choose from for that pre-race meal .... not too mention all the great sites to check out!
I hear Steve about the drawbacks of having the Olympics in Chicago - it does seem, though, that the protesters might represent a very vocal minority drowning out a much more muted, but widespread 'yeah, that'd be pretty okay with me.' (I haven't looked at any polls or anything suggesting which way the majority of the city/state leaned, and even those can be deceptive and biased)
And yes, watching an Olympics in the US would have been awesome. I was 10 years old during Atlanta and my family isn't big on track so I don't think I watched anything about it besides the bomb stuff.
I think the real drawback of not having the Olympics at Chicago is that we can't showcase track and field in the United States as well without an Olympics here. Doug Logan said that the difference between having it here and not was about $10 million - and that's no small change for the woefully underpaid (or, not paid at all) almost-pro track athlete. The only way to make track in the US bigger is to have awesome races (check) and get them out to a huge audience.
It also makes it harder to host a World Championships here, which has as of yet not happened. It too would help immensely - Daegu's in 2011, and Moscow in 2013 - hopefully Logan & crew can grab us 2015.
I was honestly in love with the idea of 2016 being held in Chicago. It would have made getting there and watching much easier than it might be to get to Rio, but realistically, much of the gaff I had heard on Chicago hosting seemed to make sense to me.
ReplyDeleteFor one, the public transportation was credited as not being able to handle the anticipated in flux of people that would enter into the city and being able to move around freely would be key between all the Olympic site/throughout Olympic village.
Secondly, most cities that host (read: all) the Olympics inevitable ending up losing more money than they make. While it seemed like Chicago had garnered quite a bit of funds plus extra to prepare for hosting, I think it was illustrated by all the protesters that Chicago has more pressing problems that their money could go to before hosting. The prestige is nice, but perhaps better living conditions would be nicer.
All of that said, I'm not unhappy with it being in South America for the first time. It's exciting and the weather in Rio in August is supposed to be great according to LRC.
I say Rome would have been a great choice (too bad it wasn't on the list for 2016)! One bazillion amazing, authentic Italian restaurants to choose from for that pre-race meal .... not too mention all the great sites to check out!
ReplyDeleteI say that Rebecca can run equally well in Rio as she can in Chicago or Madrid or Tokyo. On to Rio!!!!
ReplyDeleteI hear Steve about the drawbacks of having the Olympics in Chicago - it does seem, though, that the protesters might represent a very vocal minority drowning out a much more muted, but widespread 'yeah, that'd be pretty okay with me.' (I haven't looked at any polls or anything suggesting which way the majority of the city/state leaned, and even those can be deceptive and biased)
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, watching an Olympics in the US would have been awesome. I was 10 years old during Atlanta and my family isn't big on track so I don't think I watched anything about it besides the bomb stuff.
I think the real drawback of not having the Olympics at Chicago is that we can't showcase track and field in the United States as well without an Olympics here. Doug Logan said that the difference between having it here and not was about $10 million - and that's no small change for the woefully underpaid (or, not paid at all) almost-pro track athlete. The only way to make track in the US bigger is to have awesome races (check) and get them out to a huge audience.
It also makes it harder to host a World Championships here, which has as of yet not happened. It too would help immensely - Daegu's in 2011, and Moscow in 2013 - hopefully Logan & crew can grab us 2015.