OT- No Chicago 2016 Olympics
...bummed. I was concerned, though, about how many of Daley's cronies were going to get their hands in the till. But at the same time, would've been lots of dollars flowing through the city in the form of projects, etc, with lots of opportunities to get MY hands in the till. Ha. And besides that, I just love Chicago and wanted to see the Olympics here so the world could see how it's a great city. I'm not arrogant enough to say "the world already knows/should know." I am sure we'd have done a killer job, and it would have been a cool thing for the city like the world's fair 100 years ago, etc. Oh well.
I am also disappointed yes it might have increased taxes but if you live anywhere near down-town you could have subleased your humble abode for a ton (easily 5k a month).
Also combined with what was said above I wanted the Olympics.
I was planning on drawing up the leasing papers for my condo in East Lakeview after the 11:30 announcement. I definitely wanted the city to get it - just doing the tried and true coping mechanism of stating all the reasons the Olympics would have sucked.
For scout.com readers, think of it as TJB's "dodged a bullet when the 4 star guy chose ND over UM" line.
edit: and honestly, I think we all know why Chicago's bid failed. It's not because MJ didn't show up. It's because the midwest's greatest athlete and ambassador wasn't invited - Zoltan, Chicago is sorry.
I was planning the same thing as I live in Lakeview as well. Guess we must be neighbors.
Damn, that rental scratch would have been sweet...
Just think of all those Europeans and their speedos hanging from your towel rack.....you there yet?
$5K/month doesn't seem so great after that visual.
That's why I was going to ask for $10k so I could get the pleasure of hosting the finer Euro Trash!
Usually I don't agree with much that you say on here, Bouje, but we're on the same side of this argument. I am disappointed.
THE EGO HAS LANDED
WORLD REJECTS OBAMA:
CHICAGO OUT IN FIRST ROUND
Are you surprised?
As he is usually so in love with Obama and all things involving the left...
No Anti-American sentiment there.
but to be honest, Chicago just isn't what I think of as an Olympic city.
What defines an olympic city?
Was Atlanta an "olympic city?" Montreal? Munich? And don't get me started on winter games cities...come on.
Lake Placid baby!
You know, I always wondered how Lake Placid managed to get two Olympics. But I got to visit the city this summer (for the Ironman), and I no longer have to wonder. I'm now looking forward to going back again next summer (when my brother will actually be competing in the Ironman -- this visit was just to sign up). It's a great city. It's in the middle of nowhere, but it's a great city.
It's fun to see the photos of the two Olympics they hosted and to see the differences between the Olympics of the 1930s and the 1980s. Both ice arenas are still standing in the middle of the city, and it's remarkable to see how the expectations changed over fifty years. The 1930s Olympic ice arena is about as big as any average local ice arena now.
Also fun: visiting the site of the Miracle on Ice.
I missed the iron man this year (as a spectator of course.)
My parents have a house in LP, it's a fun town. Surprising diverse group of people up there. What I tell people is, if you hate it, you can always drive and hour and a half to Montreal.
Just kidding (sort of) but the lake is awesome, and if you go in winter, you can go bobsledding!
the winter Olympics have traditionally been held in small villages. It should be surprising given that most skiing resorts are small villages.
I seem to recall that SLC was the first large town to host a winter games. And that the IOC intends on having the winter games held in larger cities going forward. Hence, Vancouver this year.
Uhhh, Calgary? Sarajevo?
I was surprised at how packed the town gets for the Ironman; it's a much bigger event than I thought. We ended up staying at a hotel over an hour away in Canton. But it was fun to see the whole crazy deal and the crazy people who subject themselves to the Ironman. The winner last year -- a German guy -- finished in eight and a half hours and crossed the line looking like he could run a few more miles, no problem.
What was weird for us was the LP post office building: it's almost exactly the same as the old post office building in our hometown in Michigan (which the USPS just moved out of last week). The only significant visible difference was the color of the brick. Ours was built during the depression, so I'm sure there are (or were) hundreds of those same post office buildings across the nation; I just hadn't seen another one until LP. The first sight of such a familiar building in an unfamiliar location was a little strange.
That's funny, I always found that post office a bit odd (no offense) because i'd never really seen one quite like it.
Did you go out at all in LP?
The 2014s are in Sochi, Russia. Raise your hand if you know where that is.
Remember when Oprah was going to end her show in 2000? Maybe she's waiting until after Chicago hosts the Olympics to end her show.
That's a shame. Could have used the employment for infrastructure. Do we really need the Olympics in Tokyo or Rio? The follow on from London should be someplace newer and more exciting.
Apparently Tokyo got knocked out second so its Madrid and Rio and they're not going back to the same continent twice that fast since London has the next one. Especially since its never been to South America. Be a hell of a time in Brazil.
As a former Chicagoan, I'm disappointed (although as someone who still pays taxes there, not TOO disappointed), but to answer your question - we do need an Olympics in Rio. It's crazy that there hasn't been a summer games in South America, and you can't reasonably argue that Rio isn't an "exciting" venue. Or that it isn't new.
Tokyo on the other hand? No. [edited to add: Toyko got the boot as I was posting this]
I agree it's wrong South America hasn't hosted it before, but Rio with it's massive slums and high crime rate doesn't excite me much. Would you be excited by the Olympics in Mumbai?
Given that I have tons of family in Mumbai, yes. :)
I certainly see you point, and Rio does have lots of slums. It isn't ALL slums though. The city is developing, and deserves an opportunity to showcase and improve itself. The IOC obviously thinks it can do so, and assuming that Rio gets the bid, hopefully the IOC is correct.
I do want to note that I like both Mumbai and Rio... but I just can't imagine building these glorious stadia down there while millions upon millions of people live in shacks.
is true for Chicago and Atlanta also. Take a walk around the poorer neighbourhoods there and it is obvious that poverty and violence is not that hard to find.
The near fatal beatings of two school seniors in just the past two weeks has just brought national attention to this.
Comparing Mumbai and Rio to Chicago and Atlanta for crime and poverty might be one of the most ridiculous things ever.
Dude, Mumbai, are you kidding me?
Thank you, Blue Voix. My sentiments exactly. Trust me- Chicago has all kinds of poverty, etc. But that's using the United States definition. People still have a pot to piss in. We don't have death squads.
Also, get your facts straight, even though they don't help my point. It WAS a fatal beating of one student by other students in the street. I've watched the video. It was sickening. Regardless, see below.
Rio de Janeiro's low paid and ill-equipped police are violent as well, it has been said. In 2007, the police allegedly killed 1,330 people in the state, an increase of 25 percent over 2006 when 1,063 people were killed, in 2003 that number plateaued at 1,195. In comparison the American police killed only 347 people in whole of the United States during 2006. The average Rio policeman earns only R$874 a month or R$10,488 (around US$6,000) a year.
What do you think happened in Beijing? (You can even just look at detroit for the all-star game/superbowl.)
There's disagreement in the research as to how the Olympics affects a country's economy, but for poor people in developing countries--who don't pay taxes anyway and hardly benefit from social services--there is more to gain from a massive influx of cash, employment, and consumers.
That said, if you're worried about violence, check out the World Cup next summer. I'm trying to go, but I'll stick to Cape Town. I don't care what kind of security measures they employ, I'm not going out in Johannesburg at night! Good luck with that South Africa.
does have plenty of slums or favelas as they call them. But I have to say that i have been there on business and the city is beautiful as are the people. I have never been anywhere with people as fit as the Brazilians. The second I got of the plan and took a taxi into town, I realized everyone was on the beach and this was on a week day at noon. Of course beaches line all of Rio. The weather is awesome, it is cheap to visit and the food is great. I can definitely see why the Olympics would want to go there. Of course it is not a large place so it will be tight quarters. And as in most South American countries don't drink the water : )
I can assure you the drinking water in Rio is fine. http://www.ehow.com/way_5163800_drinking-water-brazil.html
One of my favorite cities. I would be pretty damn excited if the Olympics were there. We Americans are the only ones who get scared shitless about this "ooh, that place is dangerous" nonsense. While Americans sit at home frozen by paranoia (or maybe summon up the courage to follow the well-trodden path to Europe and back...whoopdie-fuckin'-do), the rest of the world laughs at us as they get to experience this globe for what it really is: a welcoming, generally safe, and awe-inspiring place.
...except for Somalia. Cross Mogadishu 2020 off my list of Olympic cities I'm excited about.
Note: Brody, this isn't meant as a jab at you or an assumption about you - it's just a general observation that happened to be prompted by your post.
I'm not sure I agree that we're the only people in the world who think of other places as dangerous. When I in London, for example, most people wouldn't ride the buses at night let alone go to Mumbai or Rio. Assuming all non-Americans are adventure seekers willing to venture into the Thai jungles alone is the same as assuming all Americans are paranoid isolationists.
The crime rate in Rio is absurdly high. I guarantee there will be some tragic deaths during the Olympics. That's not a good thing.
been to the city... but let's not pretend this is an isolated-Americans issue.
Rio's gotta a damn high murder rate. Period. That's not American fear, that's crime statistics.
"Rio alone was singled out as facing safety challenges, though the report praised Brazilian officials for reducing crime and adding community policing programs.
The city's homicide rate dropped to 33 per 100,000 people last year from 39 per 100,000 the year before, and authorities expect the rate to continue falling despite a homicide spike from April through June.
While last year's rate was the lowest in 17 years, it is much higher than the rate for Rio's competitors. Chicago's was 18 per 100,000 in 2008, up from 16 a year earlier. Madrid's was flat at 2 per 100,000 for both years, and Tokyo's was 1 per 100,000 both years."
Just saying. Chicago's homicide rate is far too high... and yet Rio's, the lowest it's been in 17 years, nearly doubles it. I'm not saying that should play a role - if Rio gets the games, hopefully a lot of the money goes towards security, and the capital investment produces some economic gains for the poor (unlikely, but hopefully).
TH Ward: How "clean" do you think those murder rate numbers are?
Others: Say what you will about Chicago and corruption, etc, but I'm fairly certain our (Chicago's) numbers are a lot more legit than those of Rio. Yes, I'm biased. I'm also realistic.
No idea, and definitely reasonable to be suspicious, but given that Rio was a bid city and finalist (and now winner), I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that the rates were met with some amount of scrutiny, maybe not.
bcsblue - I stupidly erased my post. But it's clear to me that you're not actually from Detroit (again, if so, maybe we were neighbors?). You rip Chicago for being historically racist, and then lay a shot on Detroit (no one would talk about Detroit being AMAZING, blah blah blah).
So in two posts, you exhibit little understanding of Detroit's view on the racial divide by ignorantly suggesting Chicago's history is unique (it's viewed a lot different inside 8 mile and Telegraph than it is outside) AND you slap Detroit a bit. Nice.
As someone born and raised in Detroit who now calls Chicago my home, I will say this - all cities have flaws, Detroit more than most, and segregation and racism have left an ugly legacy in virtually every city - North and South. But Chicago's a hell of a town, and your posts have successfully (congrats) been inflammatory and dumb. Shame on me for biting.
Maybe you're right, but murders in Brazil get reported via the same process they do here. I think it would take a pretty widespread and concerted effort to fudge the numbers.
Totally agree on the generalizations. I know plenty of adventurous Americans just as I've met scared people abroad. But it's striking how comparatively few non-business American travelers one finds in countries like Colombia, South Africa, or Jordan. In general, I find much higher percentages of people hailing from the U.K. and mainland Europe (not to mention Australasia, Canada, and Israel) are willing to explore off the beaten track.
Colombia is perhaps the most striking example. It's essentially in our backyard. It's cheap, it's beautiful. Cartagena is one of the most magical cities I've ever visited. And yet, 90% of the travelers I met there were from Europe. When I told my friends and family I was going there, they were certain that Colombia of the '80s and '90s was still the Colombia of today. It didn't even occur to them that things might be different now.
Anyway, there are obviously exceptions to every generalization, but overall my point still stands: Americans are paranoid about travel as compared to citizens of other developed nations.
That's a bit like the tired old "only 10% of Americans have passports" stat, though. Those 10% of Americans are more than the entire population of Canada. I'm willing to bet there are more Americans out there in the world than Europeans just based on the sheer size of the US.
But that's my point. There aren't more Americans out there. I've spent the last three years abroad on six different continents and Americans were unfailingly outnumbered amongst the tourist crowd. It wasn't even close. In fact, I'm pretty sure I encountered at least as many Canadians as Americans.
No, your point - if I read you correctly - was THE CAUSE of the lack of Americans abroad was "Paranoia." I offered you another reason (the fact that Americans, on average, work 6-10 weeks more than other industrialized nations' workers do). Feel free to disagree, but trust me, I wasn't debating whether or not you have, anecdotally, come across a lot of Americans in your travel. I was suggesting that the the generalization that Americans are "paranoid" is wrong and sort of lazy, given the relative vacation time between industrialized countries.
ThWard you are exctly right. In Europe a most workers are given nearly a month off for summer holiday plus regular holidays and other PTO. While here in the States most people are given 10 days or so at best annually. A MASSIVE difference.
Just getting to some far off places can take you a full day or days to get to or from and if you only have 10 days a year TOTAL how is that going to work exactly? It's just not practical.
But your anecdotal experiences (and mine, for that matter) are meaningless. I'm not going to disagree that Americans usually are unwilling to say "Fuck it, let's go to Machu Pichu!" but then again I doubt there are too many Swedes making the same trip.
Why are my anecdotal experiences meaningless? I lived in Chicago for 9 years. That certainly makes me more qualified to have opinions Chicago than, say, San Diego, a city I've only visited once. Similarly, I've spent multiple years of my life living in and visiting developed countries. Does that not at least give me a little insight as to what I'm talking about?
Funny you should mention Swedes in South America. About a third of the travelers I've encountered in South America have been Scandinavian. So yes, there are Swedes making the same trip.
Well, all anecdotal evidence is meaningless, isn't it? I'd say Americans and Japanese far outnumbered any other group on my trips to South America, but I'm not going to claim that as any sort of proof of anything.
It's meaningless if it's isolated. It's not meaningless if it's based on the cumulative observations of multiple years of immersion in the exact type of countries we're discussing.
Because when compared to macro-level data, they are far less accurate at predicting large-scale trends. (I can't believe I am explaining this.) Ever take stats in college or a social sciences course? It's the same kind of logic of "Everyone I've run into who's X is Y, therefore all X are Y." You aren't god. Nor did you conduct a scientific study. Therefore, your anecdotal experiences are fine for your own experiences, but please don't try to extrapolate those to some larger concept, because it's faulty logic.
Example: Let's say you've travelled to many places, and met, hell, 3000 different foreign travelers (I doubt it). Given the fact that I am sure TENS OF MILLIONS (if not hundreds of millions) of foreign people travel EVERY YEAR, unless your 3000 experiences (again, doubting you've had in-depth conversations with 3000 different foreign travelers, but let's just assume you have) is completely useless unless it was a specifically targeted study of those 3000 people to demographically match up with the population of the world. And even then, it would be too small a sample, with error. So, again- your experiences are your experiences. They are not some sort of basis for bold proclamations. Sorry.
So, based on your post, we should never form opinions or hypotheses unless we do a large-scale targeted study? Shit, I guess we just debunked 99% of MGoBoard. It's over people. There's not point to us being here anymore.
I didn't say "all" or "none". I said more than comparative populations in other developed countries, specifically those in Europe. And I sure as heck never claimed to be God. Where in the world did that come from?
This is not, "I went to such and such a country this one time for a few days and there weren't many Americans there so clearly this means Americans are scared to travel."
This is, "I've spent significant periods of my life abroad and my observations, combined with those of hundreds of other travelers and locals I met, indicated a distinct trend in the way Americans travel (or don't)."
But I read your post to be you saying that your experiences mean more than just being your experiences, and you think others should grant them some credence than being more than your experiences- as if I am supposed to learn something from your experiences. And I explained to you (multiple times) why I will not do so, nor should other people. They are anecdotal. They are no more informative re: the attitudes of people abroad on a macro level than would the information gleaned from someone regarding race who says something racist and says "I've met 3000 people of race X, and they're like Y." (I'm sorry if that's an extreme example; I'm just trying to get you to see where I'm coming from.)
And, umm, analyzing the performance of sports teams is a little different than social science proclamations about nations of people. Sorry. Opinions on why U of M should play player X or run play Y are a lot different than stating something authoritatively about the attitudes of groups of millions of people based on your personal experiences.
No, Mr. Intensity (you really are intense, aren't you), I do not think "others should grant them some credence than being more than (my) experiences". What I think is that others should grant the exact amount of credence appropriate for the experiences I've had. My OPINION, based on extensive time spent in developing countries, reactions received from Americans when they learn about the places I've been, and conversations with people in the tourism industry the world over - people who interact with thousands and thousands of tourists every year, is that A) as a proportion of population, Americans don't travel nearly as much as people from many other (not all) developed countries, and B) that ONE of (not the only) reasons for that is that many (not all) Americans have unsubstantiated fears about safety in developing countries.
Look, I'm not saying anything revolutionary here. Enough with the veiled insults and contrived exasperation.
But why is Colombia the most striking example? Because you have an anecdotal experience?
Honestly, it's time for Occam to opine.
Is it possible that Americans aren't "paranoid about travel" but, rather, just travel less due to working more hours? Couldn't the simpler explanation be that, yes, while we anecdotally have experiences of being abroad and surrounded by traveling non-Americans, that we shouldn't confuse cause/effect? (i.e.- cause - Americans vacation less, effect - Americans travel less... vs. cause - Americans are paranoid, effect - Americans travel less)...
"The International Labor Organization reports that the average American worked 1,815 hours in 2002, well above the comparable figures for France (1,545) and Germany (1,444), for example. (The average South Korean, on the other hand, worked over 2,400 hours.)"
How many South Koreans did you see in Columbia?
Not being antagonistic, just looking to chip away at what you've admitted is a very broad generalization. Those numbers are stark - American workers work on average 270 more than Germans in 2002 (note: there's probably an updated study - if someone finds it, and the ILO has found crazy different numbers, negbang away)... assuming a 40 hour work week... that's over 6 weeks less....
Certainly there are myriad factors involved and paranoia is not the only one. Your argument about working more is a valid one, but then we could go further and ask, what are the underlying reasons behind this working hour discrepancy? Perhaps if we were more interested in travel we'd have a society that placed a higher premium on vacation days and, consequently, our working hours would be more comparable. I'm not saying Americans don't value vacation days, but we clearly don't place the same import on them that someone from, say, France does.
To your first question, Colombia is a striking example for a number of reasons. First, because it's so close to America. It's easier for us to get to, it's cheaper for us to get to, and yet it's filled with non-American travelers. And yes, of course it's anecdotal - it would be silly for me to include example of countries I don't have experience with. I'm not the only one with that opinion of Colombia, however. I have friends who have lived there and they've made the same observations.
Colombia is far from an isolated example, however. In my travel experience, which includes close to 50 countries and multiple years of my life, I've met very few fellow Americans. When I'm back in the States, the first question I receive when I tell people about my travels is not about the food, or the culture, or the history. It's about my safety. "Weren't you worried about getting robbed/kidnapped/shot/something else bad?" I'll reiterate. A disproportionately large population of Americans are paranoid about travel outside of developed countries. This is my overarching point.
Also, just because people won't ride a bus at night doesn't mean they might not be willing to travel to Rio. Hell, there are buses in Chicago I'd be damn hesitant to ride after midnight. That didn't stop me from being willing to Sudan, Sri Lanka, or Kashmir. Harboring some fear or caution isn't a bad thing. Overreacting to it is.
Amongst my group in London, I was the only non-African or Indian who had been to those continents. The idea of traveling to a developing country was as foreign to my white, middle class English friends as it would be to my friends in the US.
I don't doubt that. I still find the English to be one of the best traveling groups of people around. Almost everyone there takes a gap year between high school and college to travel. Although if you really want to talk about well-traveled populations, the Irish take the cake.
The majority of students spend their gap year doing work placement. The number who travel farther away than France or North America is quite small.
Small, but still significant and far larger than the number of Americans who do the same.
How many American universities offer students a place a year down the line to enable them to do such a thing? A lot of newer universities even offer students money for their gap year if they commit to going there.
That said, the last civilian murders associated with the Olympics occurred in Atlanta, from Eric Rudolph's bombs.
The in-laws of the US men's volleyball coach were murdered while in Beijing (actually in one of the touristy places outside the city I think) for the 2008 Olympics.
It was a tourist area.
Doh. I knew I forgot something.
One of the advantages of a mostly ex-Communist but still highly authoritarian government is that it keeps the crime rate down.
The plans looked spectacular, and, unlike Rio, I am pretty sure Chicago was actually going to DO what they said they were going to do in their bid. If Rio gets it, you watch- it will be a fiasco with a bloated budget, their rail system won't get completed, etc. They're already royally fucking up their World Cup responsibilities. I guess, in my opinion, Rio DOES deserve them because no nation in South America has ever hosted, but color me skeptical that they will be able to properly pull it off. See: Montreal, 1976.
Rio qualifies as new and exciting. The Olympics have never been held in South America.
Rio also qualifies as slum city of the world. not sure if i really want to see the olympics in a city that can't afford to help house people. yes this is getting political but isn't that what the olympics are all about as of late.
Uh, any standard I know of Brazil has a significantly higher standard of living than China.
It's Michael Jordan's fault.
Very surprised. NBC is gonna be pissed if its not Rio. I guarantee that the 2020 games are in the US, or NBC is gonna pull the plug on some serious olympic money.
In what way would they "pull the plug"? If they're locked in by contract, which I am certain they are, they aren't "pulling the plug" on anything, if by "pulling the plug" you mean breaching their contract. Yeah. Bring on a $1B lawsuit that they'd surely lose. That sounds like a good idea.
Well, the contract doesn't last forever. Perhaps he's implying that at renegotiations they will offer a lot less money.
Or maybe he has secret inside info that there is a contract rider that states they can "pull the plug" if there are no American olympics for over 16 years. For all we know, that is Jacques Rogge using his Blackberry to tell us this important info.
NBC's contract only runs through London 2012. US Olympics bring higher ratings, due to the excitement that surrounds them. Since American Television is the number one source of IOC money, the IOC is gonna be forced to push an American bid or lose a significant amount when the next contract is signed.
This is less of a case if the games are in Rio, which could still be broadcast live during US Primetime. Any olympics on tape-delay gets lower ratings than a live one.
Then I stand corrected. I thought NBC had it through 2020. No idea why I thought that. My bad.
From a Chicago suburb dweller. Daley had his hands all over this, of course, and that gives me a bad feeling. But probably would have been great for local small businesses. Publicity wouldn't have hurt.
It might've just been time for South America. I wouldn't argue with that.
On the other hand if Madrid wins then you have to figure something fishy is going on. Samarach (sp?) was very shady when he was in charge of the IOC and he's heavily involved in Madrid's bid.
Chicago would have been awesome. I've never had the opportunity to go to the Olympics (I was too young and too far away from Atlanta) and this would have been my opportunity. Too bad, I just hope Rio beats Madrid for the bid. Why? I don't know I just do.
and Michelle Obama
Fail as well.
Good luck with health care.
This is not a political blog. Take your shit elsewhere
"The Chicago presentation seemed to lack an overarching theme, touching on many aspects. Some media observers felt that, with the exception of the Obamas, much of Chicago's presentation was a bit flat.
Olympic historian David Wallechinsky, author of Olympic reference books and a TV consultant during recent Games, minced no words in summing up Chicago's final presentation.
"Without the Obamas, Chicago had nothing," he said."
Maybe they should have hired Roger Penske to put together their presentation. The guy has worked miracles getting events into Detroit.
I watched some of the final presentation live last night and Pat Ryan was about as exciting to watch as a brick. It was incredibly underwhelming.
Fox News allows comments you know....
Also, nice jab about health care dummy.
I wanted Chicago to win for the wrong reasons - i.e., prestige. Fact is, losing the bid probably saves me 7 years of nonstop construction, annoying commutes, constant CTA "upgrades" and "temporary" track closings, and higher prop taxes....
Still... would've been sweet.
edit: Also agree that Rio would be very deserving. Would be majorly lame if the IOC taps Europe back-to-back and continues to shut out South America, particularly with Samaranch's influence here.
i'm here for the neg bang.
Well, you've got what you asked for. Let me know what city you're from so I can shit on it via the internets.....douche-bag.
Im from New York via Detroit. Sorry if i don't like Chicago. Thats just like one mans opinion, dude. But what other city built an express-way with the sole purpose to keep black people on the other side of it? But yeah I could just walk up and down Michigan Ave talking about how nice the flowers are and how pretty everything is.
And douche-bag? I'm not the one putting on my only pair of black dress shoes, jeans, and a striped shirt slammin yager bombs. Running up an down Lincoln Ave. yellin at my bro's to hurry up and and finish thier buttitos so we can get to the "late nite" spot before all the bitches are gone.
But Im sure you can think of a better way to express yourself. You will have just about enough time on your train ride from the Loop to Fullerton.
That was clever. You should post it on a satirical blog. It would make tons of people laugh.
Don't apologize for not liking a city. I feel the same way about NYC. I just wouldn't have been a dick about it, is all.
And yes - what other city has historically made decisions based on racist influences.... hmmm... [checking the entire US map]... nope! Not one, besides Chicago! Great point!
I don't have time for this, I'm trying to enjoy my Buttito.
haha enjoy your lunch chitown. i really do love the burritos there.
You're originally from Detroit and you're complaining about segregation anywhere else? As a former Detroiter I call shenanigans.
nm - oops, thought it was a double post. Dumb IE. I'm not retyping what I wrote. Summary: "rant, rant, maybe bcsblue and I were neighbors but I doubt it, rant rant"
ok this could go on and on, yes detroit is segregated and its terrible. But no one is going around talking about how AMAZING Detroit is from hanging out around Comerica Park, and Campus Martius.
BCSBlue: This comment is just all kinds of asinine/over-generalized/irrelevant. Should we rip on stereotypical douchebags from NYC or Detroit in response? And re: the expressway, are you referring to...? 290? The one with Cabrini Green NORTH of it? and Bridgeport SOUTH of it? Or....90/94, the one with Bucktown, the West Loop, Bridgeport, Wicker Park, etc WEST of it? Just curious.
And the kinds of guys you just mentioned that "go up and down Lincoln Avenue" are, uhh, the same kind of guys that went to the bars on South U, Main Street, et al at U of M, just a year or two older. To act like they aren't traipsing about Manhattan as well is humorous.
It's fine you don't like Chicago. But the stereotypical stuff is just strawman-type stuff. I am assuming you're better than that, man.
From: American Pharaoh: Mayor Mayor Richard J. Daley - His Battle for Chicago and the Nation By Adam Cohen, Elizabeth Taylor
"Daley's modern Chicago was built, however on an unstated foundation: commitment to racial segregation. He preserved the city's white neighborhoods and business district by builing racial separation into the very concrete of the city. New developments-housing,highways, and schools- were built where they would serve as a barrier between white nieghborhoods and the black ghetto. ...Daley was also responsible for the final touch: routing the Dan Ryan Expressway to follow the neighborhood's traditional racial boudry."
Good read, check it out, the author goes on to say how this basically saved Chicago. Still I don't think its the right thing to do.
I will check it out- seriously.
Haters will hate.
...so very,very TRUE!
Since I can't find the link to Brian's version, here is a substitute:
Thank you for your most thoughtful suggestion regarding our fair city of Chicago. You're idea of a "neg bang" is most intriguing.
While we have given much consideration as to how our city may be "fucked", you are no doubt aware that Chicago is operating under a very strained budget. Accordingly, despite our best efforts and attempts to brainstorm different cost-effective methods of being fucked, it does not appear to be financially feasible at this time. Union support was also very difficult to come by. Perhaps if the city had won it's Olympic bid, we would be having a very different discussion about all the many ways that Chicago could be fucked.
The City of Chicago Department of Recreation
....colored rings....bearz.....wait what? Did you say colored rings?!
As another former Chicagoan of 10 years, disappointed for the excitement that won't follow. But seriously, that town is so, so, so corrupt, I have a sense that this is some sort of karma coming back. The Obamas and Oprah failing in their plea is kind of funny.
Bummer, I wanted to see how corrupt Chicago could be on a world stage.
It was very surprising to finish dead last of the four cities. Especially given all of good press and general optimism of those working on the bid who have constant communication with the IOC.
The bid process is extremely political and the IOC is made up 40% of Europeans, so I won't be surprised if Madrid gets it. Personally, I'd like to see Rio.
*A number of client service firms, including mine, loaned staff pro bono to Chicago 2016. I worked on many of the finance models, including ticketing. I had started saving for my opening ceremony tickets, but maybe now I'll buy a house (yes, they are that expensive).
(1) Nice work. Not only is the bid process political, but the voting process is tricky. I honestly think if Chicago had edged out Tokyo for third, they would very likely be in the final 2 right now. Alas.
(2) Curious - how much would opening ceremony tix have been?
$800 - $1600 each. Was going to take my family (wife, both sets of parents, any kids old enough at that point). So let's say cheap seats for 8 = $6400. The good seats would have been $12800. Figured it would be a once in a lifetime experience.
Was really curious. Was thinking of going to as many events as I could afford as well.
Most Olympic only events (e.g. archery, track and field) were very reasonable. Some even as cheap as $25. Average ticket price for non-premium (premium = baskteball, soccer, swimming, other medal rounds) events were $55. Premium events started around $75 (this was preliminary swimming events). Men's basketball finals were the most expensive event ticket (no surprise) at around $450 each.
I'm a new resident of Chicago so I was really looking forward to this as a confirmation that I moved to the right city. Guess I'll just have to uproot myself and move to Rio!
Hmm, thought this might happen...but now without Chicago, the options are kind of funny. Madrid? Really, right after London? That seems totally fair. Tokyo? Only one game after Beijing? I wouldn't actually mind Tokyo, only because it's an amazing city and it would be endlessly entertaining watching them try to find more space in that city.
As for Rio, yes they probably do deserve it, but have a fun time with crime and infrastructure. And also making sure the media doesn't explore all those really dark spots they'll try to sweep under the rug. They don't quite have the experience the Chinese do in controlling the media.
it is FAR safer to walk alone in Mumbai than in Chicago. Please refrain from commenting on things you don't know a damn thing about.
Having said that, I fervently hope Mumbai nver actually gets the Olympics...the politicians there are about 1000 times more corrupt than in Chicago.
and depends on where you are. There are some places in Chicago I wouldn't feel comfortable walking around with an armed escort during the day and I'm sure that the same could be said of any major metropolitan city.
But with that being said I feel completely safe walking around downtown, in Lincoln Park, etc by myself at night.
There was the roving bands of violent robbers who beat the crap out of guys walking alone at night in Lincoln Park this summer.
I must be scary or something?
Seriously MOST (keep in mind that most is the key word here) things that happen to people in public places that are generally safe is because they are not paying attention to their surroundings.
...cops murdered over a thousand people in Rio last year. Point? Same as Bouje- I have ended up not getting beaten up and mugged after this summer! Whew!
The crime rate in Mumbai is 182.6 out of every 100,000 people, compared to 18 in Chicago. So, in spite of how safe you might have felt there... you're simply not right.
Seriously? The crime rate in Chicago is 2.7 times that of the National average...
has a higher crime rate than the national average? The point is that developing countries generally have a higher crime rate than developed countries.
Wow big cities have a higher crime rate than smaller cities... HUH...
The more you know!
There were 2,238,480 assaults in the US as compared to 236,313 in India in the last year.
Now being a serious statistician, unlike you I won't quote numbers without context and run. These numbers only reflect the *reported* crimes. Given the fact that the police here in the US are infinitely more likely to take complaints more seriously, its obvious why the US is the worst rank here.
Um here is the one for Murder per Capita:
USA is #24
India is #24
And also just assaults is a horrible measure because larger countries will obviously have more assaults than smaller countries hence why you should do per capita:
Where the US is still not very good @#6 (UK is #8)
You could also look at kidnappings or rapes per capita but no you chose to go with a personal attack on me which I'm sure will get you positive points.
The point is you looked at one statistic instead of looking at crime overall.
but you still haven't said anything about the actual post.
You can bag on me when I bring up facts but instead you ignore what I bring up and just say that "DUH INDIA IS BIGGER THAN THE US"
That's one country and it is debatable as to whether or not India is a developed country or not.
The stat from Wikipedia was sourced to a government document which provides the same information. Which I checked out before posting it here.
India has the most murders of any country in the world, so even if Chicago is that much worse than the national average it's still not as bad as India.
You are using non-normalized statistics here. If you have a billion people there will be more murders than if you have 300 million people.
Am I getting though?
One can quickly look up the visas applied for to know what the resident of that country think. I am saying randomly picking a city out of you ass and saying "would you rather have it here than Chicago" is not a valid argument.
Murder Statistics PER CAPITA (which is a normalized statistic)
I screwed up and posted that they were both #24 but alas India is @26
# 24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
# 25 Armenia: 0.0425746 per 1,000 people
# 26 India: 0.0344083 per 1,000 people
I never had any safety issues in the sic years i lived in Chicago. Hell, I even closed down both Jimbo's and the BullPen Bar during Sox games and felt safe.
In any major city, just stay alert and know where not to go. In Chicago, the vast majority of neighborhoods are safe. And when those 'hoods aren't like the Lincoln Park example below, those are more an isolated era than indicative of daily life in L.P.
Also: Chicago is an amazing city.
I think that Chicago is the best big city in the whole USofA.
We have something for everyone. With all of the parks and Lake Michigan on it's Eastern shore there really is something for everyone in the Windy City.
including a lot of overweight people wearing jeans and bright white tennis shoes. And I say this lovingly as a former Chicagoan and Midwesterner.
Please don't confuse the 'burbs and the tourists with the city inhabitants.
I really wanted the games in Chicago, but I would have bet large amounts of money on Rio because the games have never been held in S. America.
Oh, and Chicago is clearly an Olympic-caliber city. The capital of the Midwest.
it is Rio.
See what happens when Al Capone isn't running things anymore?
When the world champion 100 meter sprinter wakes up in Rio in a strange hotel-room in a bathtub full of ice, missing a kidney, it will be too late to re-think this.
Wow, as someone who was born and raised in Rio, this really offends me. Yes, the crime rate in Rio is very high. But you don't think that the city will place the security of the athletes and the tourists as the highest priority?
Rio will do a great job with the World Cup in 2014 and with the Olympics in 2016.
It's called a joke. People tend to tell them on message boards.
For the record: I'm sure that most tourists to Brazil return with their kidneys intact.
In other people's bodies.
My bad. I guess that was a backlash against all the anti-Rio sentiment going on.
Seriously though, Rio is a great city and I encourage everybody to go in 7 years.
Being a fellow Carioca I cosign.
How are those projects and that budget coming for the World Cup? That's going well. Oh wait.
honestly, don't know. Why do you imply that it's going badly?
Note: I'm operating under the assumption that, for any organization or person, the best single predictor of future behavior is past behavior.
"The problem is, it didn't quite do that. Winning the 2007 Pan American Games was considered a big, if sometimes chaotic, success for Rio. To triumph over rival bidder San Antonio, officials used the same argument — that this was Rio's turn. To back that up, they promised to transform the city with a new ring road system, something called a "via light" railway (presumably a light railway), a new state highway and 54 km of new metro lines.
But none of the roads, nary a kilometer of metro line, were built. Authorities also promised to clean up the Guanabara Bay, the fetid body of water whose smell assails visitors driving into town from the international airport. Although hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent, the stench persists and the bay remains a stinking eyesore. "
I realize that is in regard to the Pan Am games, but my understanding is that construction hasn't started on many of the projects/stadia for the 2014 games yet, and there are concerns re: funding, the budgeting, and the infrastructure. Perhaps I'm misinformed, but I don't believe so. If so, I'd be open to changing my opinion if you can link to a couple articles or something. They couldn't handle the projects of the Pan Am games. It's not that the Pan Am games were terrible or anything, but they didn't do what they said they'd do, etc, and that's kind of my point. Credibility matters.
76% of Rio residents have gonorrhea
WHICH IS WHY THEY NEED TO STEAL OUR ORGANS.
This is what I'm saying.
Brazil: Where You Are ALL Organ Donors!
What I've always read or heard about the Olympics is that they never turn out to be the great revenue-producing economic boon that they are expected to be. Maybe it's okay that Chicago didn't get these games.
The Olympics are fun and all, but you just can't justify spending billions of tax dollars for something that lasts two weeks.