Analyzing The Potential 2016 Summer Olympics Host Cities

Since when did this turn into Olympicsjerks.com huh? Alas, the selection for the 2016 games is near, well in Olympics terms anyways. There are four cities vying to host the greatest sporting event in the world, and MLJ, plus some help from a commenter, takes a look at each.

City: Madrid, Spain

Population: 3,093,000

Has City Hosted?: No

Country last hosted: 1992 Summer Games (Barcelona)

Pros: The aforementioned Barcelona games were one of the most successful in the history of the Olympics. Just 8 years after the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics, when the future of the games was in doubt, Barcelona cemented the Olympics future. That Olympics both brought together people (Germany competed under one flag for the first time since 1964) and brought new people (a then record 10,563 athletes, and Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia all competed under their own flag for the first time). Also, the torch lighting was the coolest one ever. Madrid would have excellent stadiums for sports such as soccer (Real Madrid is perhaps the largest soccer club in the world) and field hockey, as Spain is a perennial power in that sport.

Cons: Unfortunately, with the 2012 Olympics in London and the 2014 winter games in Sochi, Russia, 2016 in Madrid would place three games in a row in Europe, which is highly unlikely. Also, the competition venues for the games would take place in two different areas: one would feature just the olympic stadium and aquatic center, and the other would be by the Manzanares (Spanish for “apple orchards”) River and would host most of the rest. And according to the results of Madrid’s bid to get the 2012 games, their transportation infrastructure needs to be updated. And last, but not least, there is the fact that Spain is perceived to be a very racist country, and they certainly haven’t helped themselves with the basketball team’s photos, and Spanish soccer coach Luis Aragones’s comments regarding Thierry Henry.

Chances: I think Spain has a good bid, but ultimately I think they are the weakest of the four cities, but could be kept in the running until very late due to the IOC’s heavy Western European bias.

City: Tokyo, Japan

Population: Estimated at 12,790,000

Has City Hosted: Yes, 1964 Summer Games

Country Last Hosted: 1998 Winter Olympics (Nagano)

Pros: As one of the leading cities in the entire world in terms of culture, commerce, not to mention population, on the surface Tokyo appears to be a great place to host the games. Having the games in Tokyo would mean a revitalization of a part of the city–Tokyo would turn a waterfront area from a landfill into a lush forest area that would serve as the headquarters for equestrian and rowing events. Tokyo is currently building two roads around the city to ease traffic congestion and pours money into it’s public transportation. It also has roughly 17,000 hotel rooms near the proposed Olympic site, providing ample accommodation for spectators. One other main attraction is Tokyo is touting these as the “Green Games” meaning they will try to conduct the games in an environmentally friendly way. For example, the proposed Olympic village would run completely on solar and other renewable energy. Perhaps they can power it by other means.

Cons: While Tokyo’s massive population could prove to be a problem, there are two huge potential stumbling blocks: one is Tokyo’s previous hosting, in 1964. Another is that Beijing just hosted the 2008 games. Having two games in Asia 8 years apart would be extremely rare, not to mention the fact that the vote takes place less than a year after the Beijing games, leaving them fresh in the IOC’s mind.

Chances: On the surface Japan’s bid appears strong, but the 8 year gap plus the fact that Japan would likely campaign to get baseball and softball back into the games, casts a shadow of doubt in my mind. If it’s based on bid strength only, however, Tokyo should be the city.

City: Rio de Janiero, Brazil

Population: 6,100,000

Has City Hosted: No

Country Last Hosted: Never

Pros: Honestly, there isn’t much. Rio is a popular tourist destination, and a vibrant exotic city. It also would be the first South American city to ever host an Olympics. This could be either a big chip in their favor if the IOC thinks the continent deserves a chance, or they could decide South America just doesn’t have the infrastructure. Rio hosted the 2007 Pan-Am Games, and Pan-Am President Mario Vasquez Rana called the event the most successful in its history. That, plus the fact that the Summer games will have spent 4 quadrennia in Europe and Asia/Oceania could put the 2016 games in Rio.

Cons: Rio is a city plagued by crime. Public transportation in Rio needs tremendous improvement by 2016 in order to be ready for the influx of competitors and tourists. Having the venues in four smaller zones could also pose a problem to Rio’s bid, and the games will be much more spread out than the ones in Beijing. Also, Brazil will host the 2014 World Cup, and the double has been done 3 times before by Mexico, Germany and the United States.

Chances: Rio’s bid appears weaker than Tokyo’s and probably on par with Madrid’s, but current IOC President Jacque Rogge’s wish to get the Olympics into South America might give them a lift.

For the critique of Chicago’s chances I enlisted the help of commenter Sportsgal, who just so happens to be a Chicago resident. Here is her take, presented unedited and unabridged.

As a resident of Chicago with the potential to make some serious dough renting out my apartment to visitors, I welcome the possibility of Chicago winning the bid for the Olympic games in 2016.  But let me take a realistic look at the chances this city has for becoming an Olympic host city:

1.  Location -
PROS Chicago has Lake Michigan, a perfect spot for rowing, triathalon and beach volleyball events.  The lake front also has miles of paved roadway which could be used for the marathon events and help minimize road closures in the city.  The United Center would be perfect for the volleyball and basketball events.  New facilities would need to be created for other events (including a new arena for track and field and swimming), but there is ample space available along the lake on the south side of the city. 
CONS I’m not sure how the bike race would work… Chicago is flat farm country so I can’t see how they’d make the race challenging enough.  But this is a small con, so it doesn’t really count.  The other con is the amount of new construction that would have to be built.  Buildings go up relatively quickly here, but it can take years before the city council approves new construction.  There is a lot of conflict between the Aldermen and the mayor’s office, so it’d be interesting to see how this would work out.
2.  Transportation -
PROS The city has two major airports (Midway and O’Hare), and both have public transportation that can take people directly into the downtown area.  The Chicago Transit Authority has spent millions of dollars on renovations to the elevated trains system, and will be able to support a high level of ridership by the time 2016 rolls around.
CONS Traffic is a fucking joke in this city, and that’s without an extra 200,000 people in town to watch the Olympics.  The bus system would be at a stand still heading to the south side every day for events.  The trains would need more work, a daunting task considering the CTA has had to threaten strikes multiple times to get the state of Illinois to approve their budget.  If they don’t spend a hefty chunk of change on transportation updates, there are going to be some MAJOR issues.
Throw in all the intangibles (the city’s architecture, history, night life, world class restaurants, proximity to other cities, summer weather, bringing the Olympics back to the United States), and Chicago has a good chance of winning the bid.
[Ed. Note]- Personally I think Chicago’s bid stacks up well with the others, and in my mind is the favorite. If Chicago doesn’t win the bid, the United States will go more than 14 years without an Olympics (2002 Salt Lake City) and more than 20 years without a Summer Games (1996 Atlanta), call it excessive Patriotism, but that’s much too long.
Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks

If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.

Comments

As a former resident of Chicago, let me just say that Lake Michigan is not a perfect spot for anything, unless that anything involves getting cancer.

Quote

Little early for an Olympic post huh?

Quote

Please let it be Chicago. Considering that’s leading my list of potential cities to live in post-college, that would be sick if it happened then.

And if I made the team for the 10K, it’d be fun to run at home!

/Clearly not that talented of a runner

Quote

Intern Bill writes better articles than this.

Quote

Spain Racist? NEVER!

/Ty Duffy

Quote

WhoDey, didn’t you live in the suburbs? I think you’re confusing Lake Michigan with the Chicago River.

Quote

SG - always on defense, or offense. Sit on the sidelines once in a while.

Quote

Spain Racist…. why? I´m from Bordeaux, france, close to the spanish frontier and I don´t think spain is racist. Much more UK or my Country where ther are fascist political parties. Spain is suffering now the inconvenience of the imigration, just few years ago. May be because of that.

Quote

I always enjoy it when someone comments on a post from waaaaaaaaaaay back.

Quote

I don´t think spain is racist

Cause you’re racist.

Quote

Leave a comment

(required)

(required)