Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2016 Summer Olympics: Chicago, Madrid, Rio, or Tokyo?

The US last had the Games in 1996, Spain in 1992 which isn't really all that long ago. From that point of view, I'd like to see them go to one of the other nations – I think that South America has never hosted them before, so why not Rio de Janeiro?
 
And considering the location this year, Rio would rank 1st, Chicago 2nd, Madrid and Tokyo tied.
 
I love everything about Japan, so personally, I would love to see the Olympics in Tokyo.
 
i hope to god that its not in chicago, we have so much blind patriotism as it stands and i really dont wanna deal with all the "weve got the olympics were the greatest!" statements that would be ALL over the news. Mayb in a decade or two once we finally clean up this country, right now we are more of an embarassment to the world, regardless of our "super power" status. But hey, maybe if we've changed;) by 2016 it could be good.:apple:
 
gkarris said:
Didn't Nagano have the Winter Games not too long ago?
Click to expand...

Well it would still be an 18 year gap between 1998 and 2016, and it was the Winter Olympics, so I don't think it would be too soon for Japan to have it again.
 
No chance for Madrid. The IOC isn't going to give the games twice in a row to the same continent. Chicago is possible, but only if the other contenders completely fluff their bids. Atlanta wasn't regarded as a successful games, and the US has recently hosted the games twice too.

Rio is my bet.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; Google Wireless Transcoder;))

I vote for either Tokyo or Chicago. My backyard or my parent's backyard.

Also, remember the location is based on the fascilities and the city's ability to host, not on if/when they last hosted the games. In the end it's all about $$$/\\\.
 
I am going to have to say Chicago for a couple reasons.

  1. I live here and would love to have 'easy' access to the Olympics
  2. Hosting the Olympics will force Chicago to make the much needed improvements to the CTA and other public services
  3. Just so I can brag that they were in Chicago :eek:
 
I think Chicago will get it because it has the transportation infrastructure--especially air travel!--that can be reached from almost anywhere on Earth with a one-stop flight. I do worry about Rio de Janeiro, because I'm not sure if their infrastructure is ready to hold an Olympics, let alone soccer's World Cup.
 
SactoGuy18 said:
I think Chicago will get it because it has the transportation infrastructure--especially air travel!--that can be reached from almost anywhere on Earth with a one-stop flight.
Click to expand...
Tokyo and Madrid can also both satisfy that requirement. Neither Japan nor Spain are exactly third-world :D
 
SactoGuy18 said:
I think Chicago will get it because it has the transportation infrastructure--especially air travel!--that can be reached from almost anywhere on Earth with a one-stop flight. I do worry about Rio de Janeiro, because I'm not sure if their infrastructure is ready to hold an Olympics, let alone soccer's World Cup.
Click to expand...
And the other cities don't? I don't know about Rio de Janeiro or Madrid, but Tokyo's train transportation is much better than Chicago's. Airports are pretty much a wash with Chicago being maybe slightly better. But, I just don't see CTA being able to handle the Olympics as well as Metro and JR.
 
as a person who lives in chicago i'm a bit torn, but not too much.

it would be good for chicago for two reasons: CTA (public transport) improvement and it might help develop some of the communities that need it the most.

but i'm against it for more reason and frankly the US doesn't need to host another Olympic game so soon, so i think Rio is the most deserving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back