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

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I just read an article in New Yorker - Gangland - by Jon Lee Anderson (only abstract online):
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2..._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.

So the Brazil team will be a lock for a medal?

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.

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.

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.

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" http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...s/confused.png

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

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.

You answered your own question. Have you any idea how indaequate Chicago's transit system is?

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.

All things to ponder at this stage.

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.

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.