With just 7 days to go before the announcement of which city will host the 2016 Summer Olympic Games, lets hear your predictions and thoughts on which is most likely to get it/unlikely to get it etc. The 4 candidate cities are:

Chicago
Madrid
Rio de Janeiro
Tokyo

I'm rooting for Rio (although I wonder why Brasil didn't suggest Brasilia. I'm guessing there are fewer crime problems there and perhaps more space for new venues).

Chicago: Well, Atlanta 96, SLC 02. Enough is enough.

Madrid: Barcelona got the games in 92 and the previous Olympic Games would have taken place just around the corner. Boring.

Tokyo: My personal second choice.

I'm hoping for Chicago because then I could actually make the trip to see some events.

Obviously I'm for Chicago too and I think it'll be a close call between Rio and Chicago. The olympics has never been held in South America but the Chicago bid is quite strong with much of the venues already built.

Quoting AM744 (Reply 1): Madrid: Barcelona got the games in 92 and the previous Olympic Games would have taken place just around the corner. Boring.

   I agree

Rio for me. Second choice would probably be Chicago.

Quoting AmricanShamrok (Reply 3): clos call between Rio and Chicago.

I think so too. Rio will have the World Cup a few years earlier in 2014 - so it makes more sense to spread it around bit. Plus security issues..

Chicago all the way for me!

Quoting Force13 (Reply 2): m hoping for Chicago because then I could actually make the trip to see some events.

I think that Chicago will have an unmatched pool of spectators to come and join in.

I live in Chicago and while I think it would be great to have the Olympics here, I have absolutely no confidence in the goverment to do this within a budget. The city of Chicago is flat out broke right now even though Cook county has the highest sales tax in the country. The public transportation system is broke and it has even hit the point where the city hasn't been plowing side streets in the winter. That being said, my pick would be Rio, since it would be nice to finally give the Olympics to South America.

Chicago all the way for me... Many people have also been putting Rio up there as well but since others have pointed out that they will also be hosting the 2014 World Cup, I have a feeling that they're pretty much out of the running... The IOC likes to spread it around as well... and since the '12 games will have just been held in London, Madrid is most likely out of the question... 3 of the last 4 Olympics held in Europe? I don't think so. and by the time 2016 comes around it will have been 20 years since the summer games were last held in the US... Tokyo is a possibility but it will be the games being held in the same general area of the world for the second time in 8 years... That's like Auckland holding the Olympics in '08 so soon after Sydney...

Chicago is my best bet...  

Tokyo gets my vote

I hope Tokyo wins this bid.

It's surprising the amount of Tokyo-backers here. I thought so soon after Beijing they wouldn't award it to an Asian country...then again look at Athens 2004 & London 2012.

Quoting AmricanShamrok (Reply 10): .then again look at Athens 2004 & London 2012.

Totally different bids. Athens 2004 was the games coming home. London and Athens are culturally totally different as is New York and RIO.

I always think in regions;

Summer 2012 Europe (London)
Summer 2008 Asia (Beijing)
Summer 2004 Europe (Athens)
Summer 2000 Oceania (Sydney)
Summer 1996 North Americas(Atlanta)
Summer 1992 Europe (Barcelona)
Summer 1988 Asia (Seoul)
Summer 1984 North America (Los Angeles)
Summer 1980 Europe (Moscow)
Summer 1976 North America (Montreal)
Summer 1972 Europe (Munich)
Summer 1968 North America (Mexico City)
Summer 1964 Asia (Tokyo)
Summer 1960 Europe (Rome)

Since 1960 (Almost 50 years ago)
Europe - 6 Times
North America - 4 Times
Asia - 3 Times
Oceania - 1 Time

So the only places that haven't hosted are South America or Africa. But in terms of 2016, North hasn't hosted in awhile and South has never hosted. Asia and Europe were the last two to host.

-Rio would need a lot of support to pull it off. I guess during the PanAm games they proposed and promised a lot, but didn't deliver Can Rio Pull of 2016 Games?.
-Chicago would need a new stadium, but they keep talking about a temporary one. That's the problem with U.S. no one wants to have a huge Olympic stadium they will use once or twice, that's why they used the Coliseum at LA. Plus more work on the city.
-Logistically speaking Tokyo has the most solid bid with terms of transportation and infastructure, but suffers from low public support
-Madrid is nice but another European host, something Brazil's President said is unfair to see another European host again after so many times.

My personal first choice would be Chicago--I think the city is an ideal summer olympic site. That said, I'm against the games going to Chicago because of the very real possibility that it could bankrupt the city. Considering that we are in a recession, I'd rather not have Chicago spend money on "fun" and take the funding away from programs that need it. Now, if they can somehow pull it of LA 1984 style (where not a public dime was spent), then I'd be all for it.

Rio--great in theory, but the security issues are a giant nightmare. Let's not forget that prior to Rio hosting the Pan Am games, the delegation made a bunch of promises, very few of which were fulfilled. Apparently, Brazil is also falling behind in their preparations for the 2014 World Cup. I'd wait to give to give the games to Rio until the Brazilians can prove that they are capable of following through (no disrespect meant--it's just a matter of looking at their track record).

Madrid--would be fine, if not too hot. The only thing against their bid is that the 2012 Summer games were held in London, and so they are victims of geography. As for concerns that they just hosted the games in '92? Well, the U.S. hosted the summer games in '84 and '96, along with the winter games in 2002.

By the narrowest margins of default, I think Tokyo should win the games for 2016 (if Beijing and London were reversed, I'd put Madrid in this spot).

I have no desire for the USA to host the Summer Olympics for many years. The Billions that would have to be spent for facilites and security as well as the opportunites for world class corruption could be better not spent and save the taxpayers some money. Let Rio/Brazil have a go for it and get stuck with the costs.

Quoting Us330 (Reply 23): Now, if they can somehow pull it of LA 1984 style (where not a public dime was spent), then I'd be all for it.

That was largely thanks to Peter Ueberroth, who is now no longer chairman of the United States Olympic Committee board.

But there was some public money spent at LA. $700 million for the expansion at LAX in preparation for the 1984 Games.

But Los Angeles became the model on how to be successful as an Olympic host. It helped in location with large number of visitors to the city because of its famous sites (Hollywood, Beaches, Disneyland, etc.), the weather, size. Chicago is a large city with major draws, they need to build on that. But there will be the use of public funds some where.

The LA committee relied heavily on the use of area venues that were already in existence. The resulting low construction costs, coupled with emphasis on private corporate funding, allowed the Games to generate a profit of more than $200 million, making them by far one of the most financially successful in history. I can only hope Chicago could do the same.

If Chicago wins, They need to balance sponsorship and using private funds, not go overboard like Atlanta with sponsorship everywhere. Obviously security is generally a government funded portion, transportation infrastructure comes from the city/state, but many other major things can be privately funded. I expect to see two major Chicago based players -McDonalds and United- to sponsor a lot.

Tokyo's bid is ridiculous. This goes to Rio or Madrid easily. It's South America's turn this time.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 25): have no desire for the USA to host the Summer Olympics for many years. The Billions that would have to be spent for facilites and security as well as the opportunites for world class corruption could be better not spent and save the taxpayers some money. Let Rio/Brazil have a go for it and get stuck with the costs.

I agree, we do not need the cost or the aggravation. when all is said and done, what is left, massive debt and some sports facilities. I think Chicago has enough debt as is.

I think it will be Tokyo.

Chicago and Rio are rather unsafe in some areas; in Chicago one of the proposed venues is right by one of the worst neighborhoods there is (Washington Park venue).

It's not gonna be in Europe.

I believe Tokyo should be the winner even though I'd be in Chicago in 2016 if all goes right.

I believe that Rio has a very good shot at getting the bid because, as pointed out many times, South America has not held the games yet.

My prediction in runnings...

1. Rio
2. Chicago
3. Madrid
4. Tokyo

QXatFAT

Chicago! I hear that our stadium on campus (in Minneapolis) would receive additional seating as soccer games would be played there.

I think the top two contenders are Chicago and Madrid.

Quoting Continental (Reply 33): Chicago! I hear that our stadium on campus (in Minneapolis) would receive additional seating as soccer games would be played there.

Why not use the the new Viking Stadium that is suposed to be open in 2012 or 2013 if they get the funding

Quoting QXatFAT (Reply 31): 1. Rio 2. Chicago 3. Madrid 4. Tokyo

I agree Madrid and Tokyo will not have it, and Chicago is far behind

Quoting N104UA (Reply 35): Why not use the the new Viking Stadium that is suposed to be open in 2012 or 2013 if they get the funding

Because the Vikings play in Minnesota, over 300 miles from Chicago by the way the crow flies? Maybe?

Chicago after the enormous mess that was Atlanta i wonder if anyone dares to give it to the US again. Atlanta wasn't bad it was horrible and the complaints were just to many.
LA on the other hand was great so I assume its more about Atlanta not being up top the task than an issue with the US. Question is if people want to take a chance that Chicago will be like LA or if they are scared that its more likely to be another Atlanta.

I think it would be unfair to hand the games to Madrid. Barcelona had the games in 1992.

Rio might be brilliant but the image is that it is an unsafe place to visit. Shootouts in favelas on the news reinforces this picture. I have some mates in the oil business and although they love Brazil they don't want to bring their families there. If something happens its generally happens in a very violent way they say so better safe than sorry is their reasoning.
Somehow I still hope Rio will get it though, as some posters point out, the carnival attracts hoards of tourists and that seems to run smoothly.

Tokyo just sounds boring. Beijing had it this year so Asia can wait another four years before its their turn.

In the end I guess it all comes down to money.
US, Europe and Asia is where the corporate cash is question is where they can find most of it.

My guess is:
1. Chicago
2. Rio
3. Tokyo
4. Madrid

Well this is just sad:

"Earlier this week, GamesBids.com reported that website ChicagoansForRio.com is backed by a group of Chicagoans who don’t want to see the Olympic Games come to Chicago. This may be true – but only if those Chicagoans are in Rio de Janeiro.

GamesBids.com has discovered evidence through emails, web forum posts and web server logs that indicate promoters of this site are likely based in a city that’s Chicago’s biggest rival for the 2016 Olympic Games – Rio."


http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/olympic...bids/2016_bid_news/1216134700.html

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 38):

That is sad Mt99. However much I love Rio, that is just wrong. Thank you for the link.

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 37): US, Europe and Asia is where the corporate cash is question is where they can find most of it.

That is true BUT Brasil is on the up and comming. Something big like the Olympics can help out in assuring a steady increase in buisness and exposer for Brasil, IMO.

Quoting N104UA (Reply 35): I agree Madrid and Tokyo will not have it, and Chicago is far behind

  

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 36): Quoting N104UA (Reply 35): Why not use the the new Viking Stadium that is suposed to be open in 2012 or 2013 if they get the funding Because the Vikings play in Minnesota, over 300 miles from Chicago by the way the crow flies? Maybe?

Read the Original Post Here:

Quoting Continental (Reply 33): Chicago! I hear that our stadium on campus (in Minneapolis) would receive additional seating as soccer games would be played there.

Quoting N104UA (Reply 40): Read the Original Post Here: Quoting Continental (Reply 33): Chicago! I hear that our stadium on campus (in Minneapolis) would receive additional seating as soccer games would be played there

That sounds far fetched. One of the reasons when Cincinnati was immediately disqualified (among many others) when attempting to bid on the Olympics was that soccer games would have to be played in places as far away as Cleveland, which is about 2/3rds the distance that Minneapolis is from Chicago. And I have to imagine a city the size of Chicago, with both an NFL stadium and an MLS stadium and a couple large universities has a place to hold soccer games with significant capacity.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 41): That sounds far fetched. One of the reasons when Cincinnati was immediately disqualified (among many others) when attempting to bid on the Olympics was that soccer games would have to be played in places as far away as Cleveland, which is about 2/3rds the distance that Minneapolis is from Chicago. And I have to imagine a city the size of Chicago, with both an NFL stadium and an MLS stadium and a couple large universities has a place to hold soccer games with significant capacity.

The football games at the '96 Olympics were played in Atlanta, Orlando, Birmingham, Miami and Washington D.C.

I'm a Chicagoan born and raised. Personally, I want Rio to win. Hosting it in South America for the first time would be huge.

If we get the Olympics, if I haven't moved to another town/burb/city then I'm going to plan a two week vacation. I just have no confidence in my local government who can't even get me from point A to point B without "ding ding....we are sorry for the delay and will be moving shortly" during noon peak hours.

However, its us or Rio. I dislike the fact that people think our chances this close just lies with Obama going to suck up to the committee and hearing his great speaking skills.

After reading this thread again I think Chicago is biased on the radio and news papers someone else is getting wrong info lol. They have been reporting that IOC snoopers have said it will come down between Chicago and Rio, possibly to the last couple of votes.

I honestly don't see how Tokyo or Madrid would win at this point.

Personally I think the Summer Olympics are now too big,a tad boring and a complete waste of money.

I'd like to see Tokyo get it or Rio as a second choice.

I notice that for the London games it falls in Ramadan which will make it difficult for Arab Muslim competitiors. Guess that's me just being global again.  

My vote, if there was a worldwide election, would either be Tokyo or Rio.

Quoting SANAV8R (Reply 20): I always think in regions; Summer 2012 Europe (London) Summer 2008 Asia (Beijing) Summer 2004 Europe (Athens) Summer 2000 Oceania (Sydney) Summer 1996 North Americas(Atlanta) Summer 1992 Europe (Barcelona) Summer 1988 Asia (Seoul) Summer 1984 North America (Los Angeles) Summer 1980 Europe (Moscow) Summer 1976 North America (Montreal) Summer 1972 Europe (Munich) Summer 1968 North America (Mexico City) Summer 1964 Asia (Tokyo) Summer 1960 Europe (Rome) Since 1960 (Almost 50 years ago) Europe - 6 Times North America - 4 Times Asia - 3 Times Oceania - 1 Time

Add the Winter Games and you'll see the USA has hosted the most in both seasons. Hence as to why I don't think Chicago should get them quite yet.

I am for holding the Summer Olympics in Athens every 4 years for ever with every participating country chipping in for the costs along with Greece. This is where the original Olympics came from also it would be logical and much less a waste of money. Proper facilities could be built in and around Athens, Olympia, Sparta and other locations and maybe they could even extend the existing airport. Then there would be no more questioning as to which country would be hosting, no more favouritism, wasting of money and debt for the organizers. This is just my own idea.

I think that Olympics in its present form and given the process they are awarded are simply unsustainable in the long term, because it reduces the number of countries who can host the event to very few who can truly afford it and then those who are either capable to enslave half the country and/or get the money no matter what just to boost their collective egos for dubious "3 weeks of fame".
Either scale the whole thing down drastically or let the $$$ talk without pretending some sort of fairness or attempts to rotate the games.
What MadameConcorde suggests makes a lot of sense imho, because the wastefulness the present standards demanded by IOC cause are unjustifiable and financially neck-breaking.

That said I don't care who gets the games as long as it is a city which can afford it without cutting funds elsewhere and also where the local population actually wants to host the games.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 48): I am for holding the Summer Olympics in Athens every 4 years for ever with every participating country chipping in for the costs along with Greece.

I disagree, the thing that makes the olympics so special and exciting is the new things being done, including the opening ceremony and stadiums. If the olympics stay in Greece it will become repetetive and boring and lose its flair. Additionally, an Olympic event in Greece will result in a constant unfairness for athletes and viewers in some countries.

-CXfirst

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 50): If the olympics stay in Greece it will become repetetive and boring and lose its flair. Additionally, an Olympic event in Greece will result in a constant unfairness for athletes and viewers in some countries

I agree - in every Olympics, there is something unique about the host country, and the whole point of the Olympics is to have it "global". Also, it would be an unnecessary strain for Greece if some major event like this happened every 4 years.

I'm surprised that Brazil is using Rio as the host city, as I thought the whole point of moving the country capital from Rio to Brasilia was to promote other cities outside of Rio.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 48): I am for holding the Summer Olympics in Athens every 4 years for ever with every participating country chipping in for the costs along with Greece.

No thanks lol... 2004 was a special one off. It nearly killed us but in the end it was a great thing to get infrastructure speeded up . It lifted many parts of the country and was great for tourism but to hold it again within the next 20 years would be suicide financially.

Quoting Dc9northwest (Reply 30): in Chicago one of the proposed venues is right by one of the worst neighborhoods there is (Washington Park venue).

That's exactly why Chicago 2016 chose Washington Park (and other disadvantaged neighbourhoods) for Olympic venues - to improve the reputation and the infrastructure of these areas and invest in them.

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 37): My guess is: 1. Chicago 2. Rio 3. Tokyo 4. Madrid

   This would be my estimate too.

All my relatives in Chicago are very proud of their city, but have mixed feelings on getting the Games. One concern is all the disruption that would take place on the lead-up to 2016 in improving infrastructure/building venues etc.

Quoting Elite (Reply 51): I agree - in every Olympics, there is something unique about the host country

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 50): I disagree, the thing that makes the olympics so special and exciting is the new things being done, including the opening ceremony and stadiums.

I'm not so sure. I bet the London Olympics won't reflect Uk life or style. The Brits are embarrassed of their own culture and desparate to look inclusive.  

Many events are held in the same place, Wimbledon tennis, Wembley FA Cup, Epsom Derby, Aintree Grand National, Henley Ragatta. I don't think these events are any less spectacular for being held at the same venue year after year.

Quoting Babybus (Reply 54): Wimbledon tennis

I'm not so sure the comparison between Wimbledon and the Olympics is accurate. After all, Wimbledon is actually famous FOR being in the same place year after year. It's the venue and the history which makes it so unique.

The Olympic Games, on the other hand, have a tradition of moving around and being a global event, not staying in one place like the Wimbledon tournament.

Quoting N104UA (Reply 35): Why not use the the new Viking Stadium that is suposed to be open in 2012 or 2013 if they get the funding

I agree that that would be a much better option. However, that is a big resounding IF. I have great doubts that the stadium will be completed by 2012 or 2013.

Quoting Elite (Reply 51): I'm surprised that Brazil is using Rio as the host city, as I thought the whole point of moving the country capital from Rio to Brasilia was to promote other cities outside of Rio.

Yes the main idea is to develop other areas of the country, but neither Brasilia have the structure to support the games, neither have the venues (would be required to build all) as well as the legacy would be limited.
The only other major city in Brazil able to run the games could be Sao Paulo but one important aspect of the Summer Games is that it happens in the Summer and the only major place in Brazil with average temperatures during Winter (yes, it's winter in Brazil) is Rio.

And do you know any city in Brazil that might attract more people than Rio ?

Yes, there's safety issues all times, but we will handle this the same way we received more than 120 leaders in 1992 during one week, while we promised to offer a new highway from GIG and it was done.
New lines of subway are about to have the construction begin, the city is getting 3,500 more hotel rooms just with the expectation of the games. The state is about to hire up to 22,000 new police officers to continue fighting the crime, and not to forget, Rio is a place that keep growing. Private investments for the next 5 years are about US$ 70 billion and come from a new oil refinery, a new steel facility, a new sea port, improved facilities at GIG, subway line, improvements on train production, oil and deep waters R&D centers..

Talking about legacy, in my view the most important aspect, there's only one city with a major improvement, and this city is Rio, the only one that need investments to bring people from poverty to the market. The games will not solve the problem, but will help as the city will be able to increase the number of visitors, and show the need of addressing the crime issue.

I'm not saying Tokyo, Chicago or Madrid are worst, they for sure are more mature cities, much more developed, but against them relies facts like the 2012 summer will happen in London, just closer enough to Madrid (i believe will be the 4th). Tokyo also faces the fact that just 8 years ago Asia got their chance (should be 3rd), and Chicago, as many pointed out, is part of a country that saw the games 2 times during the past 25 years !

IOC should evaluate do something like FIFA, announcing that they might want to take the games to certain areas in the future. And impose geographical restictions like, 2020 will be North America/South America (depending on the result), 2024 Africa, 2028 Asia/Oceania, 2032 Europe, as in the end they try not to have the games so closer.

Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 57): IOC should evaluate do something like FIFA, announcing that they might want to take the games to certain areas in the future. And impose geographical restictions like, 2020 will be North America/South America (depending on the result), 2024 Africa, 2028 Asia/Oceania, 2032 Europe, as in the end they try not to have the games so closer.

The one downside I see towards geographical rotation, you do not get quality bids. The only other city in South America to have placed a bid and land among the finalist was Buenos Aires for the 2004 games, their 5th time to bid for the games. At that time Rio did not place among the final 5. If the IOC said that 2016 was open to only South American cities, I'm not sure Buenos Aires would have submitted a bid, and if they did BA would have to build more than Rio, while Rio will say we're ready now. The two cities would compete against each other, but would the quality of their bids just to out do each other yet meeting the basic requirements set by the IOC? With no geographical rotation, cities like Tokyo, Madrid, and Chicago add more value to the bid process and make all competing candidate cities bring their best during the bid process.

While I believe Rio has a more sound bid than their previous bids thanks to the PanAm games and is my choice for 2016, IOC has a track record for not selecting a host city based on emotion. Remember, in 1996, Athens lost out to Atlanta; 2000, Beijing lost out to Sydney; 2004, Athens beat out Buenos Aires and Cape Town; 2012 Paris lost out to London.

Quoting Continental (Reply 56): I agree that that would be a much better option. However, that is a big resounding IF. I have great doubts that the stadium will be completed by 2012 or 2013.

I really don't think a soccer venue is going to make or break the games. There are plenty of facilities in the US that can handle Olympic football.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 48): I am for holding the Summer Olympics in Athens every 4 years for ever with every participating country chipping in for the costs along with Greece.

I have to disagree with you 1,000,000% here. The Olympic games are now a Global Event, not some Greek festival anymore. By allowing the Olympics to move every 4 years gives other countries to be recognized and allows for athletes to experience the hosting country's culture. It is interesting to see other people's way of life around the world. Plus it helps the hosting country's economy a bit by having the games.

Quoting OA260 (Reply 52): 2004 was a special one off.

   Those were good games, alongside with Atlanta 1996.

Quoting Babybus (Reply 54): I bet the London Olympics won't reflect Uk life or style.

I'm pretty sure it will. If it doesn't, then they will have failed at their own version of the Games.

Quoting Babybus (Reply 54): The Brits are embarrassed of their own culture and desparate to look inclusive.

No reason to be. I, for one, am interested on how you Brits go about your daily routine and lifestyle while living on that island of yours.

[Edited 2009-09-26 13:08:08]

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 60): alongside with Atlanta 2006.

You mean 1996? Apart from the bomb blast and other issues  

Quoting OA260 (Reply 46): You mean 1996?

YES! Thanks for pointing that out. I corrected it!   

Quoting AznMadSci (Reply 43): While I believe Rio has a more sound bid than their previous bids thanks to the PanAm games and is my choice for 2016, IOC has a track record for not selecting a host city based on emotion. Remember, in 1996, Athens lost out to Atlanta; 2000, Beijing lost out to Sydney; 2004, Athens beat out Buenos Aires and Cape Town; 2012 Paris lost out to London.

We both agree that now Rio presents a very good bid as well as the emotion side is the strongest.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 44): I really don't think a soccer venue is going to make or break the games. There are plenty of facilities in the US that can handle Olympic football.

I wasn't arguing that it would make or break the games. I was just excited because it would potentially result in an expanded football stadium at my alma mater!