2016 Olympics Discussion

[nitetrain8601]

If it increases jobs, increases tourist dollars and development, I'm all for two weeks of "hell". Honestly, the best example is the Atlanta games. That city was nothing like it is today.

[Y2HH]

If it increases jobs, increases tourist dollars and development, I'm all for two weeks of "hell". Honestly, the best example is the Atlanta games. That city was nothing like it is today.

 

Atlanta was a dump...and it still is...it's just a slightly better looking dump. :/

 

I'm all for the creation of jobs, and improving the infrastructure in Chicago, but this exactly sort of thing coming to a head on the global, U.S. and local economic scale -- where is the money for all of these projects coming from? Where is the money to pay for this "job creation" coming from? And where does it all end?! Because it's obvious that the money/resources for these events/projects doesn't/don't exist, and we're just creating them out of thin air. We're doing it for this reason or that, Olympics or otherwise, but in the end it comes down to the fact that we're spending money we don't have, we're paying people with money that doesn't exist -- and somewhere, somehow, it's going to need to be repaid.

 

If it isn't the Olympics, it's some other excuse -- such as the creation of a multi-million dollar "bean", or some other such thing. The Olympics is just another (latest) excuse to raise taxes (which they promised wouldn't happen, and believe me it will happen), and to spend even more money that we simply do not have.

 

Yes, to everyone reading this, I realize I'm being waayyyyyy over the top in my previous 50 posts on this subject matter, but it has to stop somewhere. I'm being over the top on purpose to a point, this spending spending spending is WAY out of hand, and it just seems like everyones ok with it, as long as it helps them/their area. This is just another instance in where the more that things change, the more they stay the same.

[Balta1701]

Yes, to everyone reading this, I realize I'm being waayyyyyy over the top in my previous 50 posts on this subject matter, but it has to stop somewhere. I'm being over the top on purpose to a point, this spending spending spending is WAY out of hand, and it just seems like everyones ok with it, as long as it helps them/their area. This is just another instance in where the more that things change, the more they stay the same.

There are some situations where creating money out of thin air is exactly the solution that the system needs.

[NorthSideSox72]

Chicago is clearly the frontrunner. You have to look at history and politics of the Olympics. Tokyo and Madrid are almost assuredly out, because their continents will have had the two previous ones. Also Tokyo does a bid, literally every year, and Japan had the winter olympics very recently (Nagano). Rio is a strong candidate as the possible first South American city, but they have two HUGE problems - crime rate (which makes Chicago look like switzerland), and that it is proposing basically a "lite" olympics that is a non-starter.

 

Chicago has a better than 50/50 shot of getting it.

 

And the idea that Chicago won't see much helpful change if they get the Olympics is blind to history as well.

 

[BigSqwert]

Didn't they already say that they wouldn't make any major changes to public transit for the olympics? If that's the case there aren't any more reasons I'd want to have them here. The one golden opportunity to overhaul public transit and they want to add extra bus-only lanes during the olympics? What a joke.

[BigSqwert]

Link to my assumption above: http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/02...lympic-bid.html

[knightni]

The problem with the streets has nothing to do with the want or ability to fix them, but instead is based on science.

 

Chicago has hot and cold weather. When the weather is warm, we have rain. When the weather is cold, we have snow. When it rains, small water molecules get into the cracks in asphalt. When it freezes those molecules expand, as the water expands it causes small cracks in the asphalt. When the water molecules melt small holes are left in the street. If you repeat this process over and over again, you begin to see bigger and bigger cracks, eventually resulting in large pot holes.

 

If you could invent something to stop this process, you would be rich. The city has hundreds of other problems it could be using its workers on.

 

Why not use old tires like they do for sports fields and city courts? Mix the rubber with asphalt to create a more durable road surface.

[Balta1701]

Why not use old tires like they do for sports fields and city courts? Mix the rubber with asphalt to create a more durable road surface.

They try out new materials for those sorts of things all the time. You probably have driven over some without knowing it at all. You probably have driven over some and wondered "What the Hell happened to the road here?" because they didn't work. Producing materials that can stay strong under a wide variety of stresses and environmental conditions is a challenge.

[mr_genius]

Looks like Rio is clear frontrunner now...this is sucky news.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/olymp...1038,382,.story

 

f***ing Rick rolled...

 

AGAIN

[RockRaines]

Why not use old tires like they do for sports fields and city courts? Mix the rubber with asphalt to create a more durable road surface.

You think rubber would hold up to the pounding, chemicals, weather and salt better than what they have now? Chicago will always have potholes and s***ty streets, if you want endless stretches of wide open smooth freeway move to Arizona.

[Disco72]

Atlanta was a dump...and it still is...it's just a slightly better looking dump. :/

 

I'm not a huge fan of Atlanta (my home for the last 4+ years), but the Olympics is widely credited with kick starting urban redevelopment in Atlanta. While other cities, like Chicago, had already started developing their inner cities, Atlanta was a mess. I haven't met a single person who doesn't believe that the Olympics was a godsend for downtown Atlanta.

 

I'm not sure that it'll have the same effect on Chicago, though, since Chicago is a very different city from what Atlanta was pre-1996. If BigSqwert's link is accurate and not much infrastructure work will be done, it does seem to limit the tangible benefits to the citizens of Chicago.

[knightni]

You think rubber would hold up to the pounding, chemicals, weather and salt better than what they have now? Chicago will always have potholes and s***ty streets, if you want endless stretches of wide open smooth freeway move to Arizona.

I think that a rubber-based composite would be durable. I don't know how slip-resistant it would be though.

[Balta1701]

I think that a rubber-based composite would be durable. I don't know how slip-resistant it would be though.

Some amount of rubber has actually been used in asphalt for decades. The 1993 The federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act required that a certain amount of the nations roads were paved with rubber containing asphalt. California's been experimenting with it since at least the early 80's. The big problem is...it's expensive. Significantly more expensive than rubber-free asphalt. By up to a factor of 2 depending on the exact mix.

[knightni]

Some amount of rubber has actually been used in asphalt for decades. The 1993 The federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act required that a certain amount of the nations roads were paved with rubber containing asphalt. California's been experimenting with it since at least the early 80's. The big problem is...it's expensive. Significantly more expensive than rubber-free asphalt. By up to a factor of 2 depending on the exact mix.

It would be a good investment for roads that get heavy traffic.

[Balta1701]

It would be a good investment for roads that get heavy traffic.

You're assuming it makes them last longer, and does so by an amount that would offset the cost. The biggest benefit right now is that it gets rid of giant piles of rubber tires.

[Y2HH]

You're assuming it makes them last longer, and does so by an amount that would offset the cost. The biggest benefit right now is that it gets rid of giant piles of rubber tires.

 

And you're assuming it doesn't make them last longer. Well, I can tell you...it does. This all goes back to re-budgeting issues...nobody in streets and san (and I have people in my directly family IN that dept, so I do know), don't want to use a one time only budget which they will not get refreshed because other projects could use the money -- I.E. the water dept, the police dept or otherwise. No, streets and san wants to KEEP that budget, refreshed yearly, and not do the job once and pass the money along to another department...that's not how it works. They do have more expensive (higher quality) asphalt and underlying skeleton/cement they can use, but they won't, because if they do they won't get the same budget refresh to fix the same streets over and over, such as they currently do. In the Chicago political machine, spending 1M once every 5 years doesn't add up, when you can spend 650K every 1.5 years. And as much as you think I'm sounding like a sarcastic joker, I really wish I was trying to be one this time.

 

I know we all wish it didn't work this way, but that's the way it works. One time budgets/spend once/move along doesn't work in politics. What we do, politically, is search for inefficient ways to do something which needs to be redone on a constant basis so we can keep requesting the same budget (or more) over and over...and these requests continue to get approved, over and over. And why? Because, everyone that works in that department, their family, etc...all guaranteed votes for the next election.

 

It's just how we do things. And why not...nobody's paying for it anyway...at least not in this generation. f*** our children's generation or our children's children generation...after all, they'll have to be the ones that worry about repaying that money we keep wasting.

Edited April 2, 2009 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

It doesn't look good if you don't contract out with the lowest bidder.

[Y2HH]

It doesn't look good if you don't contract out with the lowest bidder.

 

Well, to that all I can say is well said. But I ask, why is that ok? Why do we accept it?

[Flash Tizzle]

I know from my standpoint, as a prospective police officer, I'm welcoming the Olympics to Chicago. I've heard two reliable sources suggest that Chicago will be offering exams for the first time in two years sometime around Fall. I'm sure it's Daley's way of assuring the committee members that his police department isn't in disarray despite internal problems involving lack of staffing, no contract, and poor morale under J-Fed.

 

It's strange, though. I feel completely confident Chicago will host the 2016 Olympics. I'm sure the people behind this city will devote all the available resources (both officially and not) to securing the bid.

Edited April 2, 2009 by Flash Tizzle

[Balta1701]

Well, to that all I can say is well said. But I ask, why is that ok? Why do we accept it?

I blame alcohol.

[Y2HH]

I know from my standpoint, as a prospective police officer, I'm welcoming the Olympics to Chicago. I've heard two reliable sources suggest that Chicago will be offering exams for the first time in two years sometime around Fall. I'm sure it's Daley's way of assuring the committee members that his police department isn't in disarray despite internal problems involving lack of staffing, no contract, and poor morale under J-Fed.

 

It's strange, though. I feel completely confident Chicago will host the 2016 Olympics. I'm sure the people behind this city will devote all the available resources (both officially and not) to securing the bid.

 

J-Fed is merely a scapegoat, it's Daley they hate, he's been sinking their moral slowly over the years, it's merely come to a tipping point. One of Daley's biggest uphill battles on the Olympic bid will be explaining his skyrocketing murder/crime rate -- and a police force with absolutely zero moral. Giving them their contract at the last second and hiring additional officers after years of under staffing and f***ing them over when it comes to contract negotiations won't be forgotten even after he gives in. The police know the game he plays, and he will never have them on his side again.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

None of this could be further from the truth since those locations have absolutely no bearing on the others by proximity or otherwise, they don't consider that kind of thing, they never have. Russia has nothing to do with Madrid when it comes to the Olympic decision, nothing at all. Same goes for Beijing and Tokyo.

 

Of the four remaining, Chicago has the third lowest ranking by the international committee, as Tokyo and Madrid are both over 1.0 evaluation points higher. And Rio has the lowest chance of getting the Olympics, not the highest.

 

Read more here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Summer_Olympics

 

Then tell me why for the most part the Olympics are never staged on the same continent in consecutive Games of the same variety (ie two Summer in a row)? If you don't believe that politics and recent sites plays a role in who gets the games, then you are kidding yourself.

 

I'm sorry, but there is no way they are going to allow Europe (Madrid) to host the '04, '06, '12, and '14 games and then also give Madrid the '16 when there are cities such as Chicago and Rio on the list.

 

You can not base initial scores on who has the highest/lowest chances of getting it. If that were true Rio wouldnt even be on the list as Doha scored better. Fact is, the IOC wants Rio to prove itself capable and if they can come close and can prove security won't be an issue they will get the games. The IOC is very aware that no So. American country has ever hosted. It's foolish to believe things that like don't matter, especially in this day of age.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I'm sorry, but there is no way they are going to allow Europe (Madrid) to host the '04, '06, '12, and '14 games and then also give Madrid the '16 when there are cities such as Chicago and Rio on the list.

 

You can not base initial scores on who has the highest/lowest chances of getting it. If that were true Rio wouldnt even be on the list as Doha scored better. Fact is, the IOC wants Rio to prove itself capable and if they can come close and can prove security won't be an issue they will get the games. The IOC is very aware that no So. American country has ever hosted. It's foolish to believe things that like don't matter, especially in this day of age.

I rank them as this:

1) Rio

2) Chicago

3) Tokyo

4) Madrid

 

Madrid is last because of what you said. Tokyo is 3rd because they've hosted before, Rio is #1 because no games have ever been hosted in South America and I too have thought they want Rio to step up and prove they can do it. If not, it's in Chicago.

[Disco72]

I rank them as this:

1) Rio

2) Chicago

3) Tokyo

4) Madrid

 

Madrid is last because of what you said. Tokyo is 3rd because they've hosted before, Rio is #1 because no games have ever been hosted in South America and I too have thought they want Rio to step up and prove they can do it. If not, it's in Chicago.

 

I don't believe that Rio can overcome it's problems enough to impress the Olympic Committee. Therefore, I think Chicago is the de facto front runner. In fact, I'd argue that Rio as a finalist is really just a practice run in the Committee's collective mind for a future games.

[Y2HH]

I don't believe that Rio can overcome it's problems enough to impress the Olympic Committee. Therefore, I think Chicago is the de facto front runner. In fact, I'd argue that Rio as a finalist is really just a practice run in the Committee's collective mind for a future games.

 

Bah, I hope you're all wrong.

 

I don't want them.