PDA

View Full Version : Rio gets the 2016 Summer Olympics.



OmegaNYC
October 2nd, 2009, 01:44 PM
Obama-backed bid for Chicago to host Olympics finishes last; Rio wins vote for 2016 Summer Games

By Michael Saul (http://www.nydailynews.com/authors/Michael%20Saul)
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Updated Friday, October 2nd 2009, 12:55 PM

http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2009/10/03/alg_barack_obama_copenhagen_serious.jpg

Morin/Getty
President Barack Obama presents Chicago's bid for the 2016 Olympics Friday - before his home city came in dead last in first-round voting.



The Windy City got blown away. Big time
The International Olympic Committee (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/International+Olympic+Committee) chose Rio de Janeiro (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Rio+de+Janeiro) to host the 2016 summer games Friday after tossing aside Chicago (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Chicago) in the first round of voting.

President Obama (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Barack+Obama) had delivered Chicago's failed final sales pitch.
At the time of the vote, Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Michelle+Obama) were aboard Air Force One (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Air+Force+One) en route to Washington (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Washington).
While Chicago was bounced in the first round, Tokyo (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Tokyo) was ousted in Round Two. Rio de Janeiro edged Madrid (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Madrid) in the final ballot.
Earlier in the day, Obama delivered a passionate plea, calling his adopted hometown the "most American of American cities."

"I've come here today to urge you to choose Chicago for the same reasons I chose Chicago nearly twenty-five years ago - the reasons I fell in love with the city I still call home," said Obama, who flew to Copenhagen (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Copenhagen) to lead Chicago's final presentation.

Obama, the first U.S. (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/United+States) president to attend an IOC host city selection meeting, described Chicago today in glowing terms.
"It's a bustling metropolis with the warmth of a small town where the world already comes together every day to live and work and reach for a dream," he said.

"That's not just the American dream. That's the Olympic spirit. That's why we want them in Chicago."
First Lady Michelle Obama, shining in a gold dress, also delivered an emotional and passionate pitch for the Windy City.
"I was born and raised on Chicago's South Side (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/South+Side+(Chicago)), not far from where the Games would open and close," she said.

"Ours was a neighborhood of working families -- families with modest homes and strong values.
"Sports were what brought our community together," she said. "They strengthen our ties to one another."
Michelle Obama talked about her late dad who suffered from multiple sclerosis.

She said some of her best memories are sitting on her dad's lap cheering on Olympians.
"I'm asking you to choose Chicago. I'm asking you to choose America," she said.

Along with TV talk show queen Oprah Winfrey (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Oprah+Winfrey), the Obamas undeniably brought mega-star power to the Chicago bid committee's final presentation.
Before winding up the five-hour visit and heading home, Obama met with the Danish prime minister, as well as the country's queen and prince.
Obama told reporters, "I think Chicago could not have made a better presentation. Obviously, now it's up to the IOC members."

On seeing the upbeat videos about Chicago, the president said, "It made me miss home."

Alonzo-ny
October 2nd, 2009, 02:24 PM
Wow, I am very surprised. I wanted Rio to win but I thought they would have Chicago to beat. Dead last, unbelievable.

Ninjahedge
October 2nd, 2009, 02:26 PM
Chicago would suck for the olympics.

NYC was also a bad choice in that both these cities have an identity to begin with. They do not have space to spare to put in a stadium that would never be used in the same capacity again (I know it will have some use, but still).

The best is always a spot OUTSIDE a city, somewhere close enough to be easily reached, but not one that would put a Stadium across the street from a Gas-n-Go.....

ZippyTheChimp
October 2nd, 2009, 02:33 PM
Olympics hosted in the southern hemisphere = 2 (both Australia).

Olympics hosted in South America = 0.

2010 Winter Olympics will be hosted in North America (Canada).

futurecity
October 2nd, 2009, 02:40 PM
Chicago would suck for the olympics.

NYC was also a bad choice in that both these cities have an identity to begin with. They do not have space to spare to put in a stadium that would never be used in the same capacity again (I know it will have some use, but still).

The best is always a spot OUTSIDE a city, somewhere close enough to be easily reached, but not one that would put a Stadium across the street from a Gas-n-Go.....

This isn't true. Most cities have an identity, and Rio certainly had. I don't understand what you mean at all. If you mean lesser known cities getting a boost, then I agree.. However, Chicago would have been a good candidate and I don't see why it woud have sucked...I agree there bid left little or no real infrastructure development legacies, which hurt them. Still, they had plenty of open space just outside the city to put event spaces and park land available.

Also, stadiums can be temporary structures, taken down after the event. Also, NYC would put on a wonderful olympics. Its 2 major competitors (alpha world cities) London and Tokyo have done so. NYC would easily find a space to put events if it desired, including its parks which could house temporary structures. NYC could easily rejuvinate large sections of its city with such an event such as Queens and the Bronx. It doesn't need the olympics, but NY could reinvigorate its image with some sprucing up of infrastructure and transit, and the olympics could be a catalyst.

The problem for the US, is that they don't get behind their bids as a country and there doesn't seem to be enough respect for the games here. Obama should not have gone for only 5 hours, what a slap in the face! Also, there is little or no government funding really compared to the other countries which higlights the fact that our country isn't fully behind our bids.

I think the 2020 games will go to Asia(middle east probably) or Canada. I think Africa has a chance for the following games. USA won't bid for years, but I think when it does, NYC should be the candidate. Hit them with our best.

I really think NYC could have the best chance of winning an American bid due to its appeal worldwide..Chicago never had that appeal, that Rio sex appeal that swayed voters with their heartfelt emotional and sentinmental presentation.

ZippyTheChimp
October 2nd, 2009, 02:59 PM
The IOC already has an idea, years in advance, of what area of the world they will direct a bid. The only reason they go through this farce of taking bids worldwide is to guarantee alternates in case the front running cities implode.

Look at the list of summer and winter Olympic cities over the last few decades. It's obvious.

The IOC has been taking heat for some time for never hosting an Olympics in South America or Africa.

It was a huge blunder for Obama to go to Copenhagen at all. Since he did, I figured that someone had inside information that Chicago "won" the bid, because you don't want to put a head of state in a position to get slapped down by a corrupt organization like the IOC. And that's exactly what happened.

Rio is a good choice, in that it's far enough north so that the games can be held close to summer in the northern hemisphere.

futurecity
October 2nd, 2009, 03:42 PM
No matter what the IOC wanted before, Chicago's presentation was bland. Sad to say it reflects the region itself. Really, Chicago should have tied in some real infrastrcutre development with its bid, but it was not to be (transit, etc). Legacy was horrible and they didn't offer enough emotion or spark to compete with the land of sand and samba. Obama himself not the right guy to compete with the emotion of Rio's bid (too cool). Technically, Chicago's bid lacked the "amazing" factor IMO. Rio's legacy is much more impressive, and its location.

OmegaNYC
October 2nd, 2009, 04:00 PM
^^^^

I didn't see the bid, but I heard it was rather bland and boring. I think Rio, was going to win, no matter how well Chicago, or other cities, put on a show. Simply put, Rio had the sympathy vote. Also, who can vote again Samba, Carnival, and Brazilian women? :D

To me, it also seems that nations like Bazil, get behind the idea of the Olympics, as a whole. Rather, in the US, most people really just don't care at all. This can help explain why Chicago, was bounce so early.

lofter1
October 2nd, 2009, 05:16 PM
This is no big loss. Best part: Rio's time zone is very close to time zones for much of the USA (just one hour later than NYC), so there won't be those lousy time delays for many events.

Plus, let's all wait and see how much Rio goes into the hole after they've forked over all the money needed to build the necessary "improvements" for the Olympics.

Athens will be paying for theirs for decades.

Imagine the nightmare we'd be going through now if NYC had won the 2012 Olympics, with lots of projects and no money to make them happen. Disastrous for the NYC image.

PS: Canada has the Vancouver BC Olympics coming up. They'll be off the list for quite some time.

Far more likely that South Africa will be one of the next in line.

OmegaNYC
October 2nd, 2009, 05:22 PM
^^^

Great points, as always.

When NYC was knocked out, that was back in 06. At that time, the economy was relatively "good". If anything, Chicago, should be proud to not host these games. I just saw on the news that the games might cost Rio, billions.

futurecity
October 2nd, 2009, 05:28 PM
Sorry, but NYC should have aspirations of hosting it one day. The world holds the events in high esteem, and NYC could do with a boost in infrastructure/transit development which is often pushed by an olympic bid... i.e, airport rail link anyone? All NYC's major world competitors have now had it (london, paris, tokyo, Beijing, etc). NY could do with an incentive to accelerate Queens and Bronx revitalization too...I always thought that NYC would do a nice games.

OmegaNYC
October 2nd, 2009, 05:33 PM
^^^

Where would the money come from? For all those improvements, it will cost NYC, billions. What about the cost for security and police. NYC, is all ready a target for terrorisim. I personally don't think the Olympics would work in New York.

futurecity
October 2nd, 2009, 10:33 PM
Well, situations change, economies change, and NY is not the only city that is a high profile terroist target -- London?

By the time 2024/2028 rolls around (I believe 2020 is probably Asia's), NY might be willing to launch itself into the world's scene yet again. It probably has the best chance of winning in the US (especially since Chicago probably won't bid again for years) given its international profile and the fact that it's never won it. Boston/SFO/Denver may be looking to bid, but NYC is a much more attractive candidate for the world's stage than another bland city (chicago got kicked out due to the blandness of its facilities and overall lackluster support IMO and poor legacy factors - no lasting transport links). London was helped by its Javelin service, and I think new transport links and environmental legacies are a major key to winning a bid today.

Perhaps by then NY and the US as a whole will need or be seeking to rejuvinate its international image and the opportunity will be hard to pass up. You never know with world opinion. Perhaps by then the government might actually feel that aiding the host city's chances with some funding, etc.. for some infrastructure projects may be beneficial to national interests.. who knows.

Also, NY may actually need the Olympics to spur social improvement projects if things can't get off the ground.

There are many sites capable of hosting the required stadiums in NY and NJ. Parkland could be used for temporary stadiums and other venues....NY and its suburbs will have several arenas in the area to use, a tennis center, waterways, beaches, large parks and opportunites to develop brownfields/railyards for the olympic village. By then the second avenue subway may be completed, and the Olympics could spur the development of more rail links (airport perhaps) and it would leave a lasting environmental legacy. There are so many reasons for this city to bid and not to laugh it off.

Queens/Bronx would benefit as would Staten Island. Governers island could be used also. Not to mention how amazing a large Olympics Stadium (temporary structure) would look in either Central, Prospect or Pelham Bay parks.. It might even spur the development of some kind of regional rail line, that moves between the tri-state area, who knows!

lofter1
October 2nd, 2009, 10:49 PM
Not to mention how amazing a large Olympics Stadium (temporary structure) would look in either Central, Prospect or Pelham Bay parks ...
who knows!

One thing is fairly clear: It's delusion to think that any sort of Olympic-sized stadium facility would ever be allowed to be built in either Central or Prospect Park.

Travis
October 2nd, 2009, 11:11 PM
Chicago had a lot riding on this. They can forget about getting that Chicago Spire built now. In fact they can forget about getting any big buildings built there now. They can kiss that high speed rail hub goodbye too. CTA improvements? Like that will happen without an Olympics to justify it. :rolleyes: No one is gonna want to invest there now. Not private business, not the feds, not even the rest of their state.

londonlawyer
October 2nd, 2009, 11:12 PM
Rio is a great choice.

In our new, multipolar world, it was essential to let South America host the Olympics, and Rio is a perfect place given Brazil's rising power.

Africa should get it next. Cape Town would be an ideal venue.

ZippyTheChimp
October 2nd, 2009, 11:17 PM
Mujeres Brasileñas.

londonlawyer
October 2nd, 2009, 11:58 PM
Mujeres Brasileñas.

Yeah, baby!

I'll have some caipirinhas and Cuban cigars while enjoying this view on Copa Cabana beach!

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XiU55GIxaY8/SG5wKCMi13I/AAAAAAAAANU/34SHgjFOfbo/s400/rio1989-1.jpg

195Broadway
October 3rd, 2009, 12:09 AM
Chicago lost. Just blame it on Rio.

londonlawyer
October 3rd, 2009, 12:11 AM
Good one!

futurecity
October 3rd, 2009, 12:22 AM
One thing is fairly clear: It's delusion to think that any sort of Olympic-sized stadium facility would ever be allowed to be built in either Central or Prospect Park.

Hmmm...you're right, but i had in mind only a temporary structure that would last a month or so...

futurecity
October 3rd, 2009, 12:25 AM
Chicago had a lot riding on this. They can forget about getting that Chicago Spire built now. In fact they can forget about getting any big buildings built there now. They can kiss that high speed rail hub goodbye too. CTA improvements? Like that will happen without an Olympics to justify it. :rolleyes: No one is gonna want to invest there now. Not private business, not the feds, not even the rest of their state.

Really, how do you know? Maybe this will sting for a while, but do you think a city with a GDP in the global top 5 is just going to roll over and die? How can you say no-one is going to invest now? How many years are you talking here? You are incredibly naive and presumptious to spout such tripe. I can't believe you could make such sweeping statements!

YKJ
October 3rd, 2009, 12:28 AM
I think the only feasible option for an Olympic Stadium if NYC were to bid again is a temporary one, maybe in the Flushing Meadows complex. Please, no expensive white elephants.

futurecity
October 3rd, 2009, 12:30 AM
I think the only feasible option for an Olympic Stadium if NYC were to bid again is a temporary one, maybe in the Flushing Meadows complex. Please, no expensive white elephants.

Of course, but not flushing -- its so noisy with constant aircraft. What about Van Cortland park?

YKJ
October 3rd, 2009, 12:48 AM
lol, i'm probably one of the five people in NYC that would like to host a SOG.

It's the sports fanatic me talking, not the logical New Yorker.

nick-taylor
October 3rd, 2009, 05:50 AM
Chicago would suck for the olympics.

NYC was also a bad choice in that both these cities have an identity to begin with. They do not have space to spare to put in a stadium that would never be used in the same capacity again (I know it will have some use, but still).

The best is always a spot OUTSIDE a city, somewhere close enough to be easily reached, but not one that would put a Stadium across the street from a Gas-n-Go.....Poor choice of words perhaps - but would you say cities such as London, Sydney or Beijing lack an identity? Does Rio lack an identity?

If you look closer, you'll probably find quite a few spots where a games could be hosted in New York; just off the top of my head, the giant train yard in Sunnyside. In addition, if you look at the London Olympics, the stadia that are being built specifically for the games can be reduced post-games to become commercially viable in the long-term.

Quite simply after the mess of Atlanta, and the over-commercialised nature of an American games, New York's and Chicago's bid were doomed from the start.

http://media.economist.com/images/na/2009w40/Games.jpg
Source: Economist.com

After Rio, either an African nation or India will host, with the loser hosting the next games.

I also don't see how losing the Olympics is going to somehow kill Chicago or future development. It didn't kill New York when it failed in its bid.

londonlawyer
October 3rd, 2009, 08:16 AM
I also think that the next Olympics should be in Africa.

India and the Middle East would be worthy venues too, but I think that both are too hot for the summer games and too warm for the winter games.

Rio was the ideal candidate to host the summer Olympics since it's winter there in July, but it's about 26 degrees Centigrade.

PS: The stalled Chicago projects that Chicagoans hoped would get kick started probably won't. The Spire had odds against it from the start because it required apartments to sell at prices per square foot that are several times higher than anything ever seen in Chicago. The same holds true (though to a lesser degree than the Spire) with the stalled Shangri-La, Mandarin and Waldorf projects.

antinimby
October 3rd, 2009, 08:26 AM
Hot places are not hot all-year round. Warm maybe but not hot.

Besides, it's economics (and other factors) that drive the decisions. The climate not too much unless it's for the winter Olympics.

It would be interesting to see what New York would have looked like on that graph.

Alonzo-ny
October 3rd, 2009, 08:32 AM
I think it was Qatar who lost any consideration for a future world cup because it is simply way too hot in summer. I don't think the summer games should be moved to winter to accommodate a desert country. It is this reason that makes me believe there may never be a summer games or world cup in the mid east.

I supported Rio's bid because I thought the city and country would benefit most. The other cities are in well developed countries. Brazil as a rising power deserves the welcome to the world stage. South Africa holds the world cup next year, perhaps an Olympics soon would be good also. It seems like it may be a while before any other African country will be in a position to hold them.

londonlawyer
October 3rd, 2009, 08:41 AM
Hot places are not hot all-year round. Warm maybe but not hot.

Besides, it's economics (and other factors) that drive the decisions. The climate not too much unless it's for the winter Olympics.

It would be interesting to see what New York would have looked like on that graph.

Since Rio is in the southern hemisphere, its climate worked out well. Places in the Middle East and India are in the northern hemisphere and way too hot in the summer and too warm in the winter to host the Olympics.

ZippyTheChimp
October 3rd, 2009, 08:43 AM
Besides, it's economics (and other factors) that drive the decisions. The climate not too much unless it's for the winter Olympics.Yep.

In the northern hemisphere, cites near the equator hold it a little later. Mexico City 1968 was in October.

Far south of the equator, it has to be flipped. Melbourne 1956 was in Nov-Dec.

Edward
October 3rd, 2009, 10:34 AM
I just read an article in New Yorker - Gangland - by Jon Lee Anderson (only abstract online):
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/05/091005fa_fact_anderson

Excerpt:
At least a hundred thousand people work for the drug gangs of Rio in a hierarchical structure that mimics the corporate world. The state is almost completely absent in the favelas. The drug gangs impose their own system of justice, law and order, and taxation—all by force of arms. Rio is the top-ranked city in the world for “violent intentional deaths,” with just under five thousand murders last year, at least half of which were drug-gang related. Rio's police kill more people than police anywhere in the world; in 2008, they acknowledged killing eleven hundred and eighty-eight people who were "resisting arrest", or slightly more than three people a day. "Stray bullets" are said to kill or wound at least one person every day.

ZippyTheChimp
October 3rd, 2009, 11:26 AM
So the Brazil team will be a lock for a medal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_at_the_Summer_Olympics)?

The article states that Rio is the opposite of the typical drug-trade industry in Columbia or Mexico - which is manufacture and export.

In Rio, it's import and distribution.

futurecity
October 3rd, 2009, 12:23 PM
There is little chance that 2020 will be Cape Town or Delhi -- after Rio, I'm sure they're not going to go Southern Hempisphere twice in a row and I'm sure they are not going to chose a ''new frontier" developing city once more (with a similar crime situation) without knowing the results of Rio's games. The IOC is risk adverse, and they will make this decision before RIO in 2013. Therefore I fear 2020 is going to a well developed 'safe' country, most likley in Asia or N. America. If Tokyo bids again, they might get it. Istanbul another possibility. I don't think Delhi is ready, and the Gulf has a major issues and a small population. I have a feeling though that no US city will be serious about this one, given what happened yesterday. Boston has no chance. NYC is in a bad situation economically. Also, Toronto has a problem with Vancouver so close. Its going to Asia for me, unless N.A or Africa can pull a stunner.

Europe will have to wait... 1992, 1994, 2004,2006,20012,2014.... I think 2020 is too soon after London and Sochi. Perhaps 2028. If 2018 winter games goes to Munich, all bets are off. But I think 2018 is going somwhere else.

futurecity
October 3rd, 2009, 12:33 PM
Poor choice of words perhaps - but would you say cities such as London, Sydney or Beijing lack an identity? Does Rio lack an identity?

If you look closer, you'll probably find quite a few spots where a games could be hosted in New York; just off the top of my head, the giant train yard in Sunnyside. In addition, if you look at the London Olympics, the stadia that are being built specifically for the games can be reduced post-games to become commercially viable in the long-term.

Quite simply after the mess of Atlanta, and the over-commercialised nature of an American games, New York's and Chicago's bid were doomed from the start.

http://media.economist.com/images/na/2009w40/Games.jpg
Source: Economist.com

After Rio, either an African nation or India will host, with the loser hosting the next games.

I also don't see how losing the Olympics is going to somehow kill Chicago or future development. It didn't kill New York when it failed in its bid.


The bid didn't fail due to Atlanta, it failed due to 1) Rio being the obvious choice due to their location, history and sex appeal and the might of the Brazilian government behind it 2) USOC relations and strategic voting to keep Chicago out after USOC angered the IOC with their desire to start their own Olympic TV network. 3) Their bland presentation and weak legacy, combined with Obama's dissapointing speech and 5 hour stay.
Rio had a massive transport legacy (new rail, subways, BRT) Chicago had nearly nothing concrete in this manner. They mishandled the legacy. Salt Lake city in 2002 was mainly a succes on the ground and Atlanta was not the problem for Chicago. Maybe the USOC, but not Atlanta. It was always going to be Rio though, since SA had never hosted and Rio is such a glamerous word for so many. Chicago is not as known.

lofter1
October 3rd, 2009, 12:57 PM
You state "It was always going to be Rio."

If it was pre-decided then how does that line up with your claim that Chicago lost out partially because of "Obama's dissapointing speech and 5 hour stay" :confused:

futurecity
October 3rd, 2009, 01:07 PM
I guess I meant it was Rio's to lose -- due to the situation and the fact that SA had never held before, and Chicago had to be much more impressive to even challenge... Since they didn't, they were out quickly and also b/c strategic voting came into play. People knew that Chicago was the only real threat to Rio and made the decision to get it out of the running before it could ever pose a problem for Rio. They may have come second if those other factors hadn't come into play such as the USOC issues or the lackluster legacy/presentation.

Madrid comming second was a shame, since they were never going to win given their location and London 2012

ablarc
October 3rd, 2009, 01:50 PM
Obama had delivered Chicago's failed final sales pitch.

Earlier in the day, Obama delivered a passionate plea, calling his adopted hometown the "most American of American cities."
A poor choice of sales pitches. Most folks elsewhere think American cities suck --with the exception of New York, Boston and San Francisco, which are well thought of because their Americanism is tempered.


Obama, the first president to attend an IOC host city selection meeting, described Chicago today in glowing terms.

"That's not just the American dream. That's the Olympic spirit. That's why we want them in Chicago."

"It's a bustling metropolis with the warmth of a small town where the world already comes together every day to live and work and reach for a dream," he said.
Hollow bombast. Any city can say that; it's not Chicago-specific. And if you think about, it means exactly nothing substantive.


First Lady Michelle Obama, shining in a gold dress, also delivered an emotional and passionate pitch for the Windy City.
"I was born and raised on Chicago's South Side, not far from where the Games would open and close," she said.

"Ours was a neighborhood of working families -- families with modest homes and strong values.
"Sports were what brought our community together," she said. "They strengthen our ties to one another."

Michelle Obama talked about her late dad who suffered from multiple sclerosis.

She said some of her best memories are sitting on her dad's lap cheering on Olympians.
"I'm asking you to choose Chicago. I'm asking you to choose America," she said.

Along with TV talk show queen the Obamas undeniably brought mega-star power to the Chicago bid committee's final presentation.


Before winding up the five-hour visit and heading home, Obama met with the Danish prime minister, as well as the country's queen and prince.
Big Deal. Does she think she's royalty?


Obama told reporters, "I think Chicago could not have made a better presentation."
Obviously, events suggest otherwise.


On seeing the upbeat videos about Chicago, the president said, "It made me miss home."
More irrelevant, self-reference by a king.


Chicago would have been a good candidate and I don't see why it woud have sucked...I agree there bid left little or no real infrastructure development legacies, which hurt them.
You answered your own question. Have you any idea how indaequate Chicago's transit system is?


I think Africa has a chance for the following games. USA won't bid for years, but I think when it does, NYC should be the candidate. Hit them with our best.

I really think NYC could have the best chance of winning an American bid due to its appeal worldwide..Chicago never had that appeal, that Rio sex appeal that swayed voters with their heartfelt emotional and sentimental presentation.


It was a huge blunder for Obama to go to Copenhagen at all. Since he did, I figured that someone had inside information that Chicago "won" the bid, because you don't want to put a head of state in a position to get slapped down by a corrupt organization like the IOC. And that's exactly what happened.


No matter what the IOC wanted before, Chicago's presentation was bland. Sad to say it reflects the region itself. Really, Chicago should have tied in some real infrastructure development with its bid, but it was not to be (transit, etc). Legacy was horrible and they didn't offer enough emotion or spark to compete with the land of sand and samba. Obama himself not the right guy to compete with the emotion of Rio's bid (too cool). Technically, Chicago's bid lacked the "amazing" factor IMO. Rio's legacy is much more impressive, and its location.


To me, it also seems that nations like Bazil, get behind the idea of the Olympics, as a whole. Rather, in the US, most people really just don't care at all. This can help explain why Chicago, was bounced so early.


... let's all wait and see how much Rio goes into the hole after they've forked over all the money needed to build the necessary "improvements" for the Olympics.

Athens will be paying for theirs for decades.
Athens got rejuvenated completely. From the subway to freshly-scrubbed buildings. Who can put a price tag on that? The one thing you know is it's not zero.


Sorry, but NYC should have aspirations of hosting it one day. The world holds the events in high esteem, and NYC could do with a boost in infrastructure/transit development which is often pushed by an olympic bid... i.e, airport rail link anyone? All NYC's major world competitors have now had it (london, paris, tokyo, Beijing, etc). NY could do with an incentive to accelerate Queens and Bronx revitalization too...I always thought that NYC would do a nice games.


Well, situations change, economies change, and NY is not the only city that is a high profile terroist target -- London?

By ... 2024/2028...NY might be willing to launch itself into the world's scene yet again. It probably has the best chance of winning in the US (especially since Chicago probably won't bid again for years) given its international profile and the fact that it's never won it. Boston/SFO/Denver may be looking to bid, but NYC is a much more attractive candidate for the world's stage than another bland city (chicago got kicked out due to the blandness of its facilities and overall lackluster support IMO and poor legacy factors - no lasting transport links) ... I think new transport links and environmental legacies are a major key to winning a bid today ... the Olympics could spur the development of more rail links (airport perhaps) and it would leave a lasting environmental legacy. There are so many reasons for this city to bid and not to laugh it off.

Queens/Bronx would benefit as would Staten Island. Governers island could be used also.
All things to ponder at this stage.

Rational Plan
October 3rd, 2009, 02:12 PM
The problem is the old American approach to the Olympic no longer works for the IOC.
As time has moved on the Olympics has got ever more expensive. At one point it seemed to point to financial ruin, Montreal.

The Los Angeles Games rescued it by showing that by using extensive commercial sponsorship you could even make a small profit. What really caught peoples attention though was the 1992 Barcelona games. Through a consistent effort or urban regeneration and new transport links they helped transform the image of the city from a Dirty Industrial city to a cool urban playground with a beach. They whole city one a gold medal from the International Architects Assoc (or was that RIBA). Tourism boomed and Barcelona is still seen today as a cool place to party for a long weekend.

The following 1996 Atlanta games, while a commercial success left a bad taste with the Olympic movement with it’s saturation of commercial sponsorship and the poor transport that occurred.

Since the cost of the Olympics have only gone up and now it’s all about national prestige and `Yes we too can piss £10 billion up the wall for two week global event’. National government backing is essential. For emerging countries it has become an even larger event. It announces their presence on the international stage. No one’s really sure what China spent on it’s Olympics but £20 billion is conservative.

With these sums of money, Legacy is more important than ever. The Olympic park needs to be able to be readapted or act as a catalyst for transformation of an area.

The problem for the US, is that it has no strong national funding and that it relies entirely on sponsorship. (they really don’t want another Atlanta). This lack of funding feeds through the perceptions of week transport links and a weak legacy.

Also Tensions between the US Olympic committee and the IOC have been high this year. They pissed quite a few people off by proposing their own Olympic tv channel and wrangling over a share of the TV rights. There were also complaints of never talking to the same person during the bid process, that they did not seem in sync with the Chicago bid. Also the general opinion is that Michelle speech fell flat on its face. A charming speech about how it’s my home town and that’s why it wonderful, was not enough.

Alonzo-ny
October 3rd, 2009, 02:20 PM
Considering the USA had the games in both 84 and 96 they shouldn't really get another games for a while. Makes me think about the fact the US wants another World Cup having only just had it in 94.

futurecity
October 3rd, 2009, 02:44 PM
USA will get another Summer Olympics in the 2020's, probably 2024 or 28. By then, attitudes may have changed here regarding Olympics funding. However, the US is a big federation dominated by parochial attitudes, you can't expect the Fed to fund the olympics here. The country is not united, and the South hates the Northern cities. Really, USA is a failing union. I mean, there are people cheering with glee b/c ''evil northern liberal Chicago" failed and are using it here as a weapon against Obama. The only time this country seems to unite and come together is when a major catastrophe occurs.

The US has had quite a few games recently, but so has Europe. Although Europe isn't one country, it still should not have so many games in such a short period of time. I hope Europe doesn't get the games until at least 2028. Barcelona, Athens, Torino, London, Sochi.... no way Rome or Madrid gets it in 2020. I'm shocked that 2012 went back to europe so soon after Athens.

Europe seems to think it should get the games every 2 times or so, when Asia is far more populated. I predict 2020 will go to Asia but probably not India (not ready) and China will get the 2018 games. Africa will have to wait until after we see how Rio goes.

The World Cup would be far more valuable for the US then the olympics...a 2022 World cup for the US would be fantastic... thats 28 years between cups, which doesn't seem like a huge issue.

Alonzo-ny
October 3rd, 2009, 02:51 PM
One country getting 2 out of 7 world cups. I don't think that is appropriate. There are many other countries out there who want to and can hold the World Cup. Considering that the US is probably the least football interested nation on earth.

futurecity
October 3rd, 2009, 02:57 PM
That is a crazy thing to say....the least interested? How come I've just finished watching the premiership on TV? If it were that unpopular, how come we can support a TV channel devoted to International and US soccer leagues?

You know nothing of the growing football interest in this nation and the ascendancy of our national team. You seem to be ignorant of the large growing fan base which is on the verge of reaching critical mass. Also, to say we are less interested than somwhere like Cricket loving India or New Zealand who never qualify for WC's at all, is lunacy... come over and do some research before you speak, sir. Typical european centric response. Even China is far behind our development.

Oh, and wheter you like it or not, or it insults your euro-centric views, FIFA could benefit very nicely from contributing to the growth of football over here. We will get it sooner or later whether you consider it ''fair" or not. The US is not just any other nation willing to host. We are the third largest country in the world and have a growing hispanic football mad population. Money talks, and we have most venues built. 1994 was the most attended cup ever. 94 was our infancy, 2022 will be our comming out party on the world stage of football.

OmegaNYC
October 3rd, 2009, 03:10 PM
futurecityThat is a crazy thing to say....the least interested? How come I've just finished watching the premiership on TV? If it were that unpopular, how come we can support a TV channel devoted to International and US soccer leagues?



Simple, the US, has a large Hispanic population, and there are people who interested in soccer in general, but it doesn't rival American Football, Baseball, and Basketball. There is a NHL Network, but how many Americans, really care about the Stanley Cup?

futurecity
October 3rd, 2009, 03:12 PM
Simple, the US, has a large Hispanic population, and there are people who interested in soccer in general, but it doesn't rival American Football, Baseball, and Basketball. There is a NHL Network, but how many Americans, really care about the Stanley Cup?

Americans need to wake up. Hockey and Soccer are far superior to silly games like base ball..i'd rather watch paint dry. Anywy, baseball is declining, and so is hockey sadly...soccer will soon be one of the top 3 sports in this country, and the world cup 2022 will accelerate that. Hispanics will be nearly 40 percent of our population soon enough, and you think an old slow game like Bball is going to remain King? Soccer will join NFL, College, and NBA.

Alonzo-ny
October 3rd, 2009, 03:22 PM
I understand the sport. A growing sport doesn't equal a popular sport. Neither does a skilled national team. The MLS has an average attendance of 230,000. Here in Scotland with a population significantly less that New York City has 90,000 average attendance and that is just the top league. This means less than 0.1% of the US population attends a match. In Scotland that figure works out as around 2%. If you looked at attendance for Europe it would be many times that of the US. South America would yield similar results.

India has lacked investment in football. Even so it is still the 2nd sport in the country, 1st in certain states. In the US even with the growth of football it may still be considered the 5th sport in the country by some. Like I said before the skill of the national team is irrelevant. Scotland hasn't qualified for a significant tournament since 1998 and has never made it out of the group stage of the WC. Yet my figures show 20 times the relative attendance of the USA.

Considering these figures I think there are many more deserving nations that are more passionate about the game who should have the honour of staging the World Cup. 2 out of 7 cups for a country with such low general attendance is not a good allocation. Football is growing in the US on its own anyway. Probably with some thanks to the 94 world cup. FIFA shouldn't have to give you two cups. They should focus on countries that need the investment. India or China would be perfect in fact.

futurecity
October 3rd, 2009, 03:47 PM
God, sorry pal but,

You may wish so, but you'll be dissapointed...Why the hell are you so anti USA anyway? Given your interest in NYC and the fact that you live on a USA directed forum, you should be happy for USA success not routing against us. Would I go to a London forum and start spoutin off about how England should never get this, that, etc...NO, i would be lambasted and kicked out.

FIFA doesn't care what you want, it votes for CASH and future potential, not what is today.

In fact, you seem rather anti-usa indeed... people here actually care about this country and are routing for it to succeed no matter what you think is fair or not.

Alonzo-ny
October 3rd, 2009, 03:52 PM
So basically you either can't or don't want to debate the subject? If I'm so wrong counter my points.

futurecity
October 3rd, 2009, 03:54 PM
I said, FIFA votes on potential...we have huge potential, not on what the figures today show. You must hate this country. Instead of wanting to see success here, you want bloody China to get it...communist China for god's sake. Nice. Thanks mate for the support, now why are you on this forum again? Oh, I see, just to show how anti-american you are. There are people here that actually care abou this country you know. If that's how the average Brit views it, well just lets say I'm hoping you fail in all your bids from now on. Wanting a communist country to get it over us, great friends you are.

ablarc
October 3rd, 2009, 04:06 PM
Americans need to wake up. Hockey and Soccer are far superior to silly games like base ball.
Players might run around a lot in soccer ... but it's a slow game.

Alonzo-ny
October 3rd, 2009, 04:07 PM
Baseball is lightening in comparison :p

ablarc
October 3rd, 2009, 04:09 PM
Soccer field should be reduced in size to encourage higher scores.

futurecity
October 3rd, 2009, 04:15 PM
Higher scores is boring.. Soccer is about the buildup the chess match. Goals are events to be celebrated. Basketball is so incredibly dull because of too much scoring and that makes it predicatble. Soccer goals are also very diverse in style. Baseball is incredibly slow with no flow..i don't have time to waste 4 + hours sitting on my ass eating crackerjacks watching overpaid steroid ladened big shots chewing, spitting and hanging around on a field twiddling their thumbs.

Alonzo-ny
October 3rd, 2009, 04:18 PM
No thanks. That's the beauty of the sport. While I am a fan of basketball it is much less exciting than football because there are so many baskets scored. I never understood the American's need to make everything more dramatic. When someone gets sent off in hockey it becomes a 'power play' and the complete aversion to ties.

Alonzo-ny
October 3rd, 2009, 04:19 PM
Futurecity beat me to it with a perfect explanation.

futurecity
October 3rd, 2009, 04:20 PM
Hockey is canadian, anyway it kills the big 3 sports for skill and speed, and sheer fun.

ZippyTheChimp
October 3rd, 2009, 04:23 PM
Why is there so much fighting and drunkenness in the stands at soccer matches if everyone is so hooked into the beauty of the sport?

Alonzo-ny
October 3rd, 2009, 04:32 PM
The fighting happens among the minority. I've seen many drunk people at baseball games, that's not exclusive to football. For baseball, in my opinion, alcohol is necessary to make it through the whole game. Nice generalisation though, it just so happens not to affect the beauty and entertainment value of the sport at all.

OmegaNYC
October 3rd, 2009, 04:41 PM
^^^

Have you ever been to a Baseball game?

Watching it on TV, is boring, in the fact the camera, only focus on the pitcher-hitter match-up. At the game, one can get see the full stragety, that goes in the game.

Alonzo-ny
October 3rd, 2009, 04:47 PM
I have been to a couple of Mets and Yankee games. I also used to watch on TV from time to time. I found it ok but slow and boring. Football is so much more exciting, interesting and also beautiful and spectacular. There are moments when it can take your breath away.

ZippyTheChimp
October 3rd, 2009, 04:52 PM
The fighting happens among the minority.Never said it was a majority; said "a lot."


I've seen many drunk people at baseball games,Are you generalizing?


For baseball, in my opinion, alcohol is necessary to make it through the whole game.There are entire sections at baseball stadiums that are non-alcohol.


Nice generalisation though, it just so happens not to affect the beauty and entertainment value of the sport at all.Some fans like to drink and fight. Maybe that's the beauty for them.

In the US, not exactly a docile society, stadium violence at its major sport venues, is rare.

lofter1
October 3rd, 2009, 04:55 PM
Football is so much more exciting, interesting and also beautiful and spectacular.


Are you a Jets or Giants fan?

Alonzo-ny
October 3rd, 2009, 05:01 PM
I'm referring to soccer, Lofter. If you really want to know I am a NFL fan and I like the Giants. Not being from NY I don't feel a sense of rivalry so I am happy if the Jets do well even though I am less interested in them.

futurecity
October 3rd, 2009, 05:08 PM
Football/Soccer is a visceral game -- it is short and intense. Baseball is a mental game and suits a more laid back American audience. Football/NFL is like a game of chess played out and is far too complicated for me. Its a decent game but you have too many ads. However, it also is a strategy ruled game. It seems Americans like to think too much with sports and prefer games with a large complicated tactics foundation, while the rest of the world (besides cricket nations) prefer to feel the action -- hense soccer/football- a free flowing simple game where formations, tactics, lineups, etc are not as important and do not dominate the game action. Football (soccer) is rather like dancing and musical beat, and one can see why the brazillians could be so masterful at it. The average American, in genera seem to be a more level individualistic philosophy (seen in politics also) and you don't see much tribal behavior. That is why the violence and chaos exists in world football. Tribalism is why you get massive chanting and singing at matches at world soccer events, and why American sports are far more detatched and less intense.

American commentary during their sports is always very analtyical, while european soccer broadcasters spend less time discussing tactics and prefer to call the game action. That is why American's can't commentate soccer games, they spend too much time chatting about issues and don't call the game as it unfolds.

Alonzo-ny
October 3rd, 2009, 05:09 PM
Never said it was a majority; said "a lot."

Are you generalizing?

There are entire sections at baseball stadiums that are non-alcohol.

Some fans like to drink and fight. Maybe that's the beauty for them.

In the US, not exactly a docile society, stadium violence at its major sport venues, is rare.

Alot, implies it is more than a disliked, small minority.

I replied to a generalisation with a generalisation. To highlight the fact that it proves nothing.

You can't buy alcohol in any football stadium in Scotland. That proves nothing either.

My whole response was demonstrating that the game is not the reason for the fighting nor does the fighting make football less of a game. The drunkenness on the other hand is far from unique at football games and is not the problem. The violence however is.

On the whole Zippy your post missed the mark. I don't know what the point of it was. Are you suggesting people literally go to games and are forced to drink alcohol? We were discussing the qualities of the actual sport, where does your post fit into that?

HoveringCheesecake
October 3rd, 2009, 05:55 PM
I also think that the next Olympics should be in Africa.

India and the Middle East would be worthy venues too, but I think that both are too hot for the summer games and too warm for the winter games.

Rio was the ideal candidate to host the summer Olympics since it's winter there in July, but it's about 26 degrees Centigrade.

PS: The stalled Chicago projects that Chicagoans hoped would get kick started probably won't. The Spire had odds against it from the start because it required apartments to sell at prices per square foot that are several times higher than anything ever seen in Chicago. The same holds true (though to a lesser degree than the Spire) with the stalled Shangri-La, Mandarin and Waldorf projects.

Mandarin and Waldorf were already canceled for good before the decision. Not sure about Shangri-La. I'd be VERY surprised to see the Spire go anywhere since Trump still has how many floors of luxury condos that aren't sold? I'd also put the future of the remaining Central Station towers in question. 375 East Wacker as well. And Waterview will probably end up being a glorified parking garage.

londonlawyer
October 3rd, 2009, 06:27 PM
God, sorry pal but,

You may wish so, but you'll be dissapointed...Why the hell are you so anti USA anyway?

Alonso is a great guy who is not anti anything. I can personally vouch for him as a top-notch chap.

ZippyTheChimp
October 3rd, 2009, 07:45 PM
Alot, implies it is more than a disliked, small minority.Only you could try to quantify "a lot."

Let's say... enough to make it a noticeable part of a discussion about the sport.


On the whole Zippy your post missed the mark. I don't know what the point of it was.That its popularity may be more than an appreciation of "the beauty of the sport."

Seems to be a lot of it is tied up in nationalism, and ethnicity. Maybe, as ablarc suggested, it could use a little more scoring to redirect interest.

ZippyTheChimp
October 3rd, 2009, 07:54 PM
Anywy, baseball is declining, and so is hockey sadly...soccer will soon be one of the top 3 sports in this country, and the world cup 2022 will accelerate that. Hispanics will be nearly 40 percent of our population soon enough, and you think an old slow game like Bball is going to remain King? Soccer will join NFL, College, and NBA.

After the above, you give a lengthy analysis in post #64, contradicting yourself.

Truly, a piece of work.

futurecity
October 3rd, 2009, 08:08 PM
I disagree Mr. Smart Alec nitpicker!! My intention was to give my analysis, and I did not contradict myself to my knowledge..

...anyway, soon enough I think soccer will play a much larger part of the national sports pie than today..just look at our demographics. Our youth is also much more inclined to watch soccer than before. Baseball is losing the youth to other sports, and soccer will pick up some of those. Timeline all depends on our development of soccer talent and our success as a nation in world cups.

BTW, take a look at some ''real'' high quality soccer, you might like and learn to appreciate the skill and finesse that some of the great masters of the game have. You'll also appreciate that it takes only around 1:45 to play, leaving more time for other things. Perhaps you will see that the non-scoring part of the game is like a successive wave of troops, attacking and retreating, until that final succesful strike. Perhaps that will appeal to you. Just watch your brethren americans love the world's most popular sport....seee, you can be like that too if you just let down that rigid prejudice that so many hold.

futurecity
October 3rd, 2009, 08:14 PM
Anyway back on topic

GO RIO!!! CONGRATS to the so-called most beautiful city in the world. You deserve it!:)

Brazil is a rising superpower....soon to challenge the USA for economic supremacy b/c we are in a tailspin :(

Alonzo-ny
October 3rd, 2009, 08:16 PM
Only you could try to quantify "a lot."

Let's say... enough to make it a noticeable part of a discussion about the sport.

That its popularity may be more than an appreciation of "the beauty of the sport."

Seems to be a lot of it is tied up in nationalism, and ethnicity. Maybe, as ablarc suggested, it could use a little more scoring to redirect interest.

Yes Zippy, I wanted it quantified. Give me a break. Alot implies it is a much more serious issue than it is. Stating that is not trying to quantify it.

It generally isn't nationality or ethnicity as most occurrences occur within countries. That is to say one English team's supporters fighting with another English team's supporters.

To say the fans are fighting because there isn't enough scoring is absurd. If it is so boring people wouldn't go. It is probably because the sport creates so much passion that violence is more likely in a charged environment.

ZippyTheChimp
October 3rd, 2009, 08:33 PM
Yes Zippy, I wanted it quantified. Give me a break.

3.14159265. Are you happy now?


If it is so boring people wouldn't go.Nowhere did I say it is boring. I think ablarc did.


It is probably because the sport creates so much passion that violence is more likely in a charged environment.Maybe a few more goals would ease the tension.

Football hooliganism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_hooliganism) A rare case in a discussion of violence where the US is no more than a footnote. LOL

futurecity
October 3rd, 2009, 10:30 PM
3.14159265. Are you happy now?

Nowhere did I say it is boring. I think ablarc did.

Maybe a few more goals would ease the tension.

Football hooliganism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_hooliganism) A rare case in a discussion of violence where the US is no more than a footnote. LOL

A few more goals? You don't get it. Europeans don't modify a sport and ruin a tradition like we do here -- there is no constant rule changes, etc.. The sport does not need to force feed a situation to please fans. It is what it is, and it has succeeded, no? The world's most popular sport means something. No need to mess with a good thing. Remember, the games are rather short...we are not talking about a 3 1/2-4 hour event like NBA,NHL,NFL... where there is ample time to get bored. Hooliganism is bad, but is still rare...i watch games on TV every week and hear of few problems in the UK, etc..... To be honest, football would be boring with more goals -- we'd lose the suspense and build up.. Of course, there are plenty of games with ample scoring anyway. Typical score lines are often 4-2, 3-1, 2-1...etc. A goal in soccer is a massive event, remember that!

ZippyTheChimp
October 3rd, 2009, 10:33 PM
^
Would you lighten up.

futurecity
October 3rd, 2009, 10:36 PM
Exactly what am I doing wrong now? I'm doing nothing but defending the sport that you think should be modified, which is ridiculous!!!

ZippyTheChimp
October 3rd, 2009, 10:47 PM
^
In case you didn't know, lighten up means to relax.

OmegaNYC
October 3rd, 2009, 11:20 PM
C'mah, guys! Lets all be friends. :cool:

BTW, this 2016 Olympics, got me thinking; Will there be life on Earth by that time? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KGg0BWFb-4)

Travis
October 4th, 2009, 05:14 AM
Brazil is a rising superpower....soon to challenge the USA for economic supremacy b/c we are in a tailspin :(

The US is in a tailspin and yet Chicago is not?



Speaking of soccer, I've never understood how people could get into a sport where there are frequently ties. I'd be pissed if I blew $400-$600 taking the family to an NFL game and it ended in a freaking tie!

Alonzo-ny
October 4th, 2009, 05:36 AM
What is the point in watching a sport if all you care about is the final result.

londonlawyer
October 4th, 2009, 06:32 AM
C'mah, guys! Lets all be friends. :cool:

BTW, this 2016 Olympics, got me thinking; Will there be life on Earth by that time? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KGg0BWFb-4)

I agree with you, Omega.

Rio is a great city, and Brazil is a great country. Fairness required South America to get this, and Cape Town should get it next. Africa's chance is long over-due.

PS: Forget the sports, chaps. We're forgetting what's really important in life.

http://inlinethumb15.webshots.com/41166/2368623950030920823S425x425Q85.jpg
http://www.sexyminiskirts.org/images/800px-Beautiful_Buns_in_beautiful_string-bikinis.jpg

If you have any misgivings abot Rio, I suggest that you drink a caipirinha, listen to this song and your misgivings will melt away!

"The Girl from Ipanema"

Tall and tan and young and lovely
The girl from ipanema goes walking
And when she passes, each one she passes goes - ah

When she walks, shes like a samba
That swings so cool and sways so gentle
That when she passes, each one she passes goes - ooh

(ooh) but I watch her so sadly
How can I tell her I love her
Yes I would give my heart gladly
But each day, when she walks to the sea
She looks straight ahead, not at me

Tall, (and) tan, (and) young, (and) lovely
The girl from ipanema goes walking
And when she passes, I smile - but she doesnt see (doesnt see)
(she just doesnt see, she never sees me,...)

ZippyTheChimp
October 4th, 2009, 06:41 AM
^
Looks sporting to me.

londonlawyer
October 4th, 2009, 06:54 AM
I agree with you, Zip.

This is one Olympics that I plan to attend. There's nothing quite like a Cuban cigar (they're cheap in Rio), a caipirina and this lovely scenery! Let the games begin!

WizardOfOss
October 4th, 2009, 08:23 AM
Speaking of soccer, I've never understood how people could get into a sport where there are frequently ties. I'd be pissed if I blew $400-$600 taking the family to an NFL game and it ended in a freaking tie!
Speaking of football, I've never understood how people could get into a sport named after some body parts that are hardly used for anything else then just walking or running. Why don't they call it handball? And I'd be pissed if I blew $400-$600 taking the family to a game with so little action and so much just waiting for the next few seconds of action ;)
(BTW, I actually do like American football, but it's no match for real football (http://www.fcoss.nl/), the kind where they actually use their feet. And it only costs me about $15 each game...)

Alonzo-ny
October 4th, 2009, 08:36 AM
LL, I strongly suggest we attend the womens beach volleyball games. I've been a avid fan for many years!

londonlawyer
October 4th, 2009, 08:52 AM
I agree with you, amigo! Let's go!! (.)(.)

Travis
October 4th, 2009, 10:32 AM
What is the point in watching a sport if all you care about is the final result.

Uh, because the end result is all that matters. The whole reason the game is played is so you can differentiate winners from losers. If your team played terribly but still won, heh, who cares, you got the win! If they play wonderfully but still lose than....well they're still losers.


Speaking of football, I've never understood how people could get into a sport named after some body parts that are hardly used for anything else then just walking or running. Why don't they call it handball? And I'd be pissed if I blew $400-$600 taking the family to a game with so little action and so much just waiting for the next few seconds of action ;)
(BTW, I actually do like American football, but it's no match for real football (http://www.fcoss.nl/), the kind where they actually use their feet. And it only costs me about $15 each game...)

The reason it's got the name "Football" has much to do with the history of the sport. But I suspect you already knew that.

Alonzo-ny
October 4th, 2009, 11:13 AM
Uh, because the end result is all that matters. The whole reason the game is played is so you can differentiate winners from losers. If your team played terribly but still won, heh, who cares, you got the win! If they play wonderfully but still lose than....well they're still losers.

So what are all those stadiums and TV networks for? Why not just play in an empty building and then publish the results. You can read the score without the bother of actually watching the game.

OmegaNYC
October 4th, 2009, 12:02 PM
I agree with you, Omega.

Rio is a great city, and Brazil is a great country. Fairness required South America to get this, and Cape Town should get it next. Africa's chance is long over-due.

PS: Forget the sports, chaps. We're forgetting what's really important in life.

http://inlinethumb15.webshots.com/41166/2368623950030920823S425x425Q85.jpg
http://www.sexyminiskirts.org/images/800px-Beautiful_Buns_in_beautiful_string-bikinis.jpg

If you have any misgivings abot Rio, I suggest that you drink a caipirinha, listen to this song and your misgivings will melt away!

"The Girl from Ipanema"

Tall and tan and young and lovely
The girl from ipanema goes walking
And when she passes, each one she passes goes - ah

When she walks, shes like a samba
That swings so cool and sways so gentle
That when she passes, each one she passes goes - ooh

(ooh) but I watch her so sadly
How can I tell her I love her
Yes I would give my heart gladly
But each day, when she walks to the sea
She looks straight ahead, not at me

Tall, (and) tan, (and) young, (and) lovely
The girl from ipanema goes walking
And when she passes, I smile - but she doesnt see (doesnt see)
(she just doesnt see, she never sees me,...)



.................


I am going to Brazil, in 2016. The heck with the world ending in 2012! :D

OmegaNYC
October 4th, 2009, 12:04 PM
http://www.ibtimes.com/data/articleimgs/216565-obama-g8.jpg


Oh btw, this young lady, would be legal by 2016. :cool:

futurecity
October 4th, 2009, 12:28 PM
Its great, surely one of the greatest locations for a city for beauty and lifestyle...

Why should Cape Town get 2020? Wouldn't that be a big risk right after RIO, without knowing how RIO went? I'd say Cape Town in 2024/2028.

Despite the beauty there, I'm a skyscraper guy, so I'll take Chongquing over RIO anyday :)

antinimby
October 4th, 2009, 01:28 PM
Don't anyone let Michelle see this:

http://www.ibtimes.com/data/articleimgs/216565-obama-g8.jpg

ZippyTheChimp
October 4th, 2009, 01:50 PM
Barack, you dog.

In 1973, Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev visited the US. He took a liking to Jill St john, who had played Tiffany - the girl with the cassette tape not very well hidden in her bikini - in the 007 film Diamonds Are Forever.

http://melchettmike.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/leonid-brezhnev2.jpg

londonlawyer
October 4th, 2009, 01:59 PM
http://www.ibtimes.com/data/articleimgs/216565-obama-g8.jpg


Oh btw, this young lady, would be legal by 2016. :cool:

That's a great photo of Obama and Sarko checking out the merchandise!

londonlawyer
October 4th, 2009, 02:00 PM
Don't anyone let Michelle see this:

http://www.ibtimes.com/data/articleimgs/216565-obama-g8.jpg

Michelle has quite a serious "booty" herself. I'd love to see her in a thong.

londonlawyer
October 4th, 2009, 02:06 PM
Its great, surely one of the greatest locations for a city for beauty and lifestyle...

Why should Cape Town get 2020? Wouldn't that be a big risk right after RIO, without knowing how RIO went? I'd say Cape Town in 2024/2028.

Despite the beauty there, I'm a skyscraper guy, so I'll take Chongquing over RIO anyday :)

As far as I'm aware, Africa has never had the Olympics, and it should. Cape Town seems like it would be the safest place to have it.

WizardOfOss
October 4th, 2009, 02:09 PM
Uh, because the end result is all that matters. The whole reason the game is played is so you can differentiate winners from losers. If your team played terribly but still won, heh, who cares, you got the win! If they play wonderfully but still lose than....well they're still losers.I visit the home games of FC Oss, our local professional team, and probably the smallest in our country in terms of fanbase, history and money, and playing on the 2nd highest level. I don't expect them to become champions. A couple of years ago, in the playoffs they had the chance to go to to the highest level, but I'm glad they didn't, it would have been disastrous for the club. And one of the matches I've enjoyed the least was when they were leading with 3-0 after only 20 minutes, with 70 very long and boring minutes left. I do expect them to fight every second of the game, and get the best result possible. If they gave 110 percent, but lost because the opponent was simply better, I don't have the slightest problem with that.


The reason it's got the name "Football" has much to do with the history of the sport. But I suspect you already knew that.Well, unfortunately I don't know. It probably has it's roots in English rugby I guess, and those guys actually do use their feet, maybe that's it?

Here in the Netherlands (and probably most of Europe) we're simply not familiar with the sport. Most people here think it's kind of lame, not a lot of action, and all those guys in those ridiculous outfits. But I guess you just need to understand the sport to learn to appreciate it, it's much more about tactics than our football (I'm sorry, but I refuse to use the word soccer), most people just don't see that aspect of the game.

Also, there's hardly anything about it here on television, only the Superbowl is being broadcasted live, but that's in the middle of the night when nobody is watching. And since they canceled the NFL Europe, it also isn't played here anymore at any serious level. Here in the Netherlands it has been the 2nd largest sport in terms of audience, but that was mostly because of all the free tickets they gave away (we Dutch like anything that's free....).

However, since a couple of weeks I got ESPN on tv, so I finally have a chance to see some more of it. So far, I haven't been disappointed...

Back on-topic: after those pictures posyted by londonlawyer, I'm really looking forward for the Games in Rio. Why not just skip London 2012? :D

futurecity
October 4th, 2009, 06:40 PM
Soccer is an english term originally, we just adopted it....we didn't make it up..we use it to differentiate, since NFL is the top dog it gets to keep the name football.

Alonzo-ny
October 4th, 2009, 06:43 PM
Soccer is generally never used in the UK. It would get you some funny looks.

lofter1
October 4th, 2009, 07:18 PM
Online Etymology Dictionary (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php)

football (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=football)

the open-air game, first recorded 1409; forbidden in a Scottish statute of 1424. The first reference to the ball itself is 1486. Figurative sense of "something idly kicked around" is first recorded 1532. Ball-kicking games date back to the Roman legions, at least, but the sport seems to have risen to a national obsession in England, c.1630. Rules first regularized at Cambridge, 1848; soccer (q.v.) split off in 1863. The U.S. style (known to some in England as "stop-start rugby with padding") evolved gradually 19c.; the first true collegiate game is considered to have been played Nov. 6, 1869, between Princeton and Rutgers, at Rutgers, but the rules there were more like soccer. A rematch at Princeton Nov. 13, with the home team's rules, was true U.S. football. The earliest recorded application of the word football to this is from 1881.

soccer (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=soccer)

1889, socca, later socker (1891), soccer (1895), originally university slang, from a shortened form of Assoc., abbreviation of association in Football Association (as opposed to Rugby football); cf. rugger, but they hardly could have taken the first three letters of Assoc.

rugby (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rugby)

1864, after Rugby, public school where the game was played, from city of Rugby in Warwickshire, central England. The place name is Rocheberie (1086) "fortified place of a man called *Hroca;" with second element from O.E. burh (dat. byrig), replaced by 13c. with O.N. -by "village" due to the infl. of Dan. settlers. Otherwise it might be *Rockbury today. First element perhaps rather O.E. hroc "rook." Rugby Union formed 1871. Slang rugger for "rugby player" is from 1893.

WizardOfOss
October 4th, 2009, 07:46 PM
"stop-start rugby with padding":D

Interesting link by the way!

Travis
October 5th, 2009, 10:41 PM
So what are all those stadiums and TV networks for? Why not just play in an empty building and then publish the results. You can read the score without the bother of actually watching the game.

While you were trying to be glib you would be surprised at how many in the US would be perfectly happy with that. For them the game is merely a way to get statistics that can be discussed and plugged into formulas. Get a couple of baseball stat nerds going and you could be there all night.


Well, unfortunately I don't know. It probably has it's roots in English rugby I guess, and those guys actually do use their feet, maybe that's it?

The history is rather confusing. At one time there were several games, developed at individual universities, that got combined into one. "Football" was the most popular of these and, since kicking was still the primary way of scoring and the center hiked the ball using his foot, it was retained as the name to give it household recognition. Eventually rule changes, such as introducing down & distance rules and the forward pass, morphed the game into what it is today. The name, however, stayed the same and since we had inherited the name "soccer" for the other "football" there wasn't any confusion over which sport was which.


Here in the Netherlands (and probably most of Europe) we're simply not familiar with the sport. Most people here think it's kind of lame, not a lot of action, and all those guys in those ridiculous outfits. But I guess you just need to understand the sport to learn to appreciate it, it's much more about tactics than our football (I'm sorry, but I refuse to use the word soccer), most people just don't see that aspect of the game.

Yes, it, along with baseball, is a very tactic oriented game. Those who enjoy the spectator aspects of the two sports usually do so to analyze the tactics being used and try to predict the tactics that will be used next (and what might be done to counter them). Basketball and soccer are appreciated for very different reasons as there tactics is usually about trying to match up particular athletes against each other.

Ninjahedge
October 6th, 2009, 09:46 AM
I think Football (american) was probably more interesting before it became so specialized. There were fewer odd rules in the game, less padding, and guys that were strong, but not Herculean.

Baseball was more of a pasttime. It is a "team" but most of it depended on individual performances. It is not as much of an actively interactive competition as Football, Hockey or Soccer.

Basketball is just a weird one that seems to have developed in the street (get a ball, a basket, and see if you can get the ball IN the basket. Simple enough). Rules evolved as the play progressed. Again, the specialization of the sport has turned it superhuman with common rules not making much sense anymore (10' net height when the guys can almost jump up and sit on it).

MOST sport is pretty pointless. It is either a participatory competition that is the human equivalent to rams butting heads or dogs fighting. The only difference being that with most things human, we have seperated it "intellectually" from the base instincts of Male Superiority (Alpha Male) and pack instinct (teams).

Trying to figure out why so many violent incidents happen after soccer games as opposed to any other sport is difficult though. I think it may be because of the dirth of other sporting events actively followed in Europe (and other areas). Crickit (sp) has a devoted following, but I do not think it has the same impetus as Soccer. This unilateral devotion has a tendency to breed rivalries that fester over time as people overpersonify and become too closely attached to the outcome of a favorite team.

While this may have had some meaning back when the people of those teams were comprised mainly of locals, relatives, or townsfolk, it bears almost no heft now when the people that are supposedly "representing" you have almost NO contact or connection with you, your family, your locality or anyone you know.

Team play sports will always be like his, so long as we have these instincts and our newfound global interconnectivity.



Back to OT. WAY back I forget who posted it, but my post about NYC's identity being at odds with an olympic bid was challanged in that other major cities have also hosed teh games with "no problem".

I just don't know. I looked at the plans for the games and I was unimpressed. I knew the neighborhoods, and knew how much of a PITA it would be to get from A to B to Q if you had to. An Olympic village, in my mind, should not have you skipping halfway across town because they thought that Archery was just not important enough to include on the main site.

As for bringing up LA, no comparison. NY is as similar to LA as Newark is to San Fran. They are not OPPOSITES, tehy are just not directly comparable on many levels.

As for Obama going to try to back the bid, I thought that was just plain silly. That should have been Biden or Michelle, not the Big Man. I know you have to show you are concerned about world events that are less arduous than War or Recession, but something on this level is too sticky to start putting your hands into it.

Kris
October 21st, 2009, 12:36 AM
October 21, 2009
Violence in the Newest Olympic City Rattles Brazil
By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO

RIO DE JANEIRO — Just over two weeks ago, this striking city landed the 2016 Olympic Games, the first ever in South America, setting off a sweaty, impromptu beach party that lasted most of the weekend. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil sobbed with happiness. Rio’s residents glowed with pride.

Then over the weekend, in a chilling outburst of violence, drug traffickers wielding what the police say they believe was a large-caliber weapon shot down a police helicopter just one mile from Maracana stadium, where the opening and closing ceremonies of the Olympics will be held and the World Cup final will be played two years before the Olympics.

Suddenly, the celebration has been overwhelmed by hand-wringing that Rio’s chronic drug violence, its Achilles’ heel, is being laid bare before the world, and at a particularly inopportune time. Brazilian leaders are touring the world, searching for the investors needed to pay for the billions of dollars in infrastructure required for the events.

The images of the downed police helicopter “really shocked Brazilians, and now everyone is worried about what will happen with the Games,” said Nadine Matos, 21, who works at a hair salon a block from Copacabana Beach. “We need to tell the world where we stand so that people outside Brazil understand what measures we are taking and are not so worried when planning to come down here.”

For years, the police essentially abandoned the shantytowns, or favelas, that ring the city’s wealthier neighborhoods, following a policy that resembled containment more than enforcement. That allowed drug traffickers to create strongholds where violence is pervasive. And as the downing of the helicopter illustrated, the police have not done enough to slow the flow of weapons into the favelas.

“We never hid our problems during the candidacy process,” Rio’s mayor, Eduardo Paes, said in London, where he was on the first leg of a trip in search of investors for the public works projects. “We always said to people that we were still facing problems. We still have a lot to do, we have a long road ahead of us and what happened this weekend showed that.”

This year the government has tried a community policing approach to stemming the violence and cracking down on the traffickers in dozens of shantytowns, where about a third of Rio’s six million residents live. But the effort involves only five favelas so far, and the weekend of mayhem has set off a new round of debate here about whether the more militaristic strategy that has long prevailed has been useful.

The police said the weekend’s violence started after a trafficker in prison ordered his followers to invade a rival’s territory. The attack set off clashes between the police and drug bandits in several favelas, leaving at least 26 people dead, including three policemen and three bystanders.

At least one member of the International Olympic Committee, which highlighted Rio’s security challenges as its chief concern before the vote on Oct. 2, was quick to point out that Rio was not the only city to endure violence after winning an Olympic vote. In 2005, a day after London was awarded the 2012 Games, terrorists set off bombs on London’s trains and buses, leaving 56 dead and about 700 wounded.

With Brazil’s television talk shows and newspapers filled with commentary about the effect of the violence on Rio’s image, city and state leaders are suddenly being forced to defend their Olympic bid all over again.

“We want to get to 2016 with a Rio de Janeiro in peace before, during and after the Games,” Sérgio Cabral, Rio’s governor, said Saturday.

The awarding of the Olympics has been viewed here as a crowning achievement for the country and a personal triumph for Mr. da Silva. But on Monday, he also found himself having to promise to provide additional money from the federal government in the next few months to beef up security in Rio.

“I need to clean the filth that drug traffickers impose on Brazil,” he said.

Rio has one of the world’s highest murder rates, with 4,631 homicides in the metropolitan area last year; that number represented a decline from 5,143 murders in 2006, government figures show. There were 523 murders in New York City last year.

With the community policing effort, police officers try to establish a more permanent presence within the shantytowns. That differs from the prevailing approach for more than a decade, in which the police guarded the entrances to the favelas and ventured in only for select operations that often turned into deadly gun battles with traffickers.

Though the community policing effort has so far been limited, law enforcement experts said they were encouraged.

“For the first time the police are not coming into the favelas shooting, and then leaving only to draw the hatred and scorn of the residents,” said Silvia Ramos, the coordinator of the Centro de Estudos de Segurança e Cidadania at the University of Cândido Mendes in Rio.

Other analysts said they believed that the new approach needed to be accompanied by new housing and the building of avenues in the favelas to enable police cars to move in and out with ease.

The weekend mayhem began when a gang members from Morro São João, backed up by about 200 men from other favelas, invaded the nearby Morro dos Macacos neighborhood, in the northern zone of Rio.

The police waited for daylight before moving in to avoid civilian casualties, José Mariano Beltrame, Rio’s secretary of public security, told reporters.

As officers moved in, gang members opened fire on a police helicopter, causing it to explode and crash. Three of the six officers on board were killed.

Organizers of the Olympic bid promised the I.O.C. that Rio would improve its police forces by 2012 with additional training, technology and resources.

Law enforcement experts are hoping that will mean that the Olympics will leave a legacy of improved policing in Rio.

“Now the cost of security will be very high, but it will be worth it,” said Rodrigo Pimentel, a former police captain in the special operations unit of Rio’s Military Police. “Let’s be honest. One more helicopter that falls down in Rio de Janeiro or another slum invasion could seriously raise the chances of the Olympics and World Cup pulling out of Brazil.”

Myrna Domit contributed reporting from Miami.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/world/americas/21rio.html

Ninjahedge
October 21st, 2009, 08:58 AM
The drug dealers were idiotic. They should be working their best to bring the Olympics in there as well. Many MANY new, albeit temporary, customers.

Scaring people away will only cost them money in th elong run.


Some drug dealers just have no appreciation for economics and advertising!!!!! ;)

lofter1
October 21st, 2009, 05:12 PM
Terrific in-depth article in a recent "New Yorker" on the drug gangs of the favelas ...

GANGLAND

The New Yorker
by Jon Lee Anderson
A Reporter at Large
October 5, 2009
P. 47

ABSTRACT (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/05/091005fa_fact_anderson): A REPORTER AT LARGE about drug gangs in Rio de Janeiro. Iara is a manager of the favela of Parque Royal, in Rio de Janeiro, for a gangster named Fernandinho. She handled “community relations” on behalf of their gang, the Terceiro Commando Puro, or Pure Third Command. Parque Royal consists of a mess of slapped-up houses of corrugated tin and unpainted brick, dreadlocked tangles of pilfered electrical wiring, and graffiti-covered walls and alleyways where little general stores and rudimentary bars jostled for space with storefront evangelical churches. Mentions Fernandinho's deputy, Gilberto Coelho de Oliveira. Gil, who was Fernandinho's best friend from childhood, was said to be the more violent of the two. Parque Royal is situated on Ilha do Governador, the largest of the islands that dot the great inland bay of Guanabara. In a pattern that repeats itself all over Rio, Ilha's residents live under the de-facto authority of a gangster and his private army.

Fernandinho is a thirty-one-year-old drug dealer named Fernando Gomes de Freitas. He controls all but one of the eighteen Ilha favelas on behalf of Pure Third Command. In addition to running Ilha's narcotics trade, he takes commissions from some legal businesses, such as bus transport services and cable-television operators. In 2007, police calculated that Fernandinho earned about $300,000 a month from drugs, but speculated that his other sources of income might dwarf this. He is a fugitive— one of the most-wanted criminals in Rio—yet he lives openly in Morro do Dendê. There have been several high-profile police attempts to capture or kill him. The Pure Third Command started as a breakaway faction of the Red Command, the oldest and most powerful of Rio's narco-mafias.

Unlike the export-based drug cartels of Colombia or Mexico, Rio's gangs are wholesale importers—of cocaine from Bolivia, Peru, and Colombia, and of marijuana from Paraguay—as well as managers of their own retail distribution networks. At least a hundred thousand people work for the drug gangs of Rio in a hierarchical structure that mimics the corporate world. The state is almost completely absent in the favelas. The drug gangs impose their own system of justice, law and order, and taxation—all by force of arms. Rio is the top-ranked city in the world for “violent international deaths,” with just under five thousand murders last year, at least half of which were drug-gang related. Two decades after the collapse of Communism the region's Marxist guerrillas have disappeared, only to be replaced by violent drug mafias. The politician and former guerrilla Alfredo Sirkis likens the spread of Rio's gang culture to Al Qaeda's appeal to disenfranchised youths in Muslim societies.

Fernandinho's enforcers sometimes dismember their victims and are known as os Açougueiros—“the Butchers.” A few years ago, Fernandinho became friendly with Pastor Sidney Espino dos Santos, a popular local evangelical preacher, and he was “born again.” Mentions O Dia reporter Leslie Leitão. Pastor Sidney and Fernandinho's relationship has deteriorated recently. The writer interviewed Fernandinho at his home in Morro do Dendê. Fernandinho claimed his function was not that different from a mayor's. “People come to me with their problems and I look after them.” The writer pointed out the contradiction between Fernandinho's religious faith and his continued life as a drug trafficker. He asked, “For you, where is the dividing line between right and wrong?” Fernandinho smiled, and said, “Who's deciding?”

Read the full text of this article in the digital edition. (Subscription required.)

The New Yorker © 2009 Condé Nast Digital.

lofter1
November 10th, 2009, 09:47 PM
The IOC must be sweatin' this one ...

Brazil's 2 largest cities hit by massive blackouts

Associated Press (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091111/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_brazil_blackouts)
21 minutes ago ...

RIO DE JANEIRO – A top Brazilian official says blackouts that darkened Brazil's two largest cities and other areas were caused by the failure of a hydroelectric dam that supplies the nation with 20 percent of its electricity.

Mines and Energy Minister Edison Lobao says authorities do not know why the dam went offline. He says a possible cause was a large storm that hit the area around the dam straddling the Brazil-Paraguay border.
Lobao said Tuesday night that Brazil lost 17,000 megawatts of power. Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo were among the hardest hit cities.

The blackouts came three days after CBS's "60 Minutes" news program reported that several past Brazilian power outages were caused by hackers. Brazilian officials had played down the report before the latest outages.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press.