Jump to content

Let's Look At History...


Recommended Posts

What's with the Madrid supporters playing a zero-sum game to prove their city's superiority over another city by denial, ie. stating that Chicago's playing field is just the Pan-Am games rather than the Olympics? Or pulling statistics out of nowhere without realizing how ridiculous some of the claims are (especially the facts related to airport statistics)! Dude, I can pull a statistic by taking a picture of the night sky near O'Hare and show about 15-20 planes hovering and lining up from all directions waiting to land in any given hour--talk about a busy airport! I hope it doesn't get as ugly as the 2012 bidding posts! I know I'm "new" here but I've been visiting the forum even before the 2012 bidding wars started and I know how it gets really ugly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply
What's with the Madrid supporters playing a zero-sum game to prove their city's superiority over another city by denial, ie. stating that Chicago's playing field is just the Pan-Am games rather than the Olympics? Or pulling statistics out of nowhere without realizing how ridiculous some of the claims are (especially the facts related to airport statistics)! Dude, I can pull a statistic by taking a picture of the night sky near O'Hare and show about 15-20 planes hovering and lining up from all directions waiting to land in any given hour--talk about a busy airport! I hope it doesn't get as ugly as the 2012 bidding posts! I know I'm "new" here but I've been visiting the forum even before the 2012 bidding wars started and I know how it gets really ugly.

There's something in the Madrid water. It makes its citizens think its the center of the world...and that stuff like improvements or legacy, etc., can only happen to and by Madrid but somehow the other candidates just can't think of those things. :blink:

But hey, let's get Madrid to the head of the line. You know what happens then...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's something in the Madrid water. It makes its citizens think its the center of the world...and that stuff like improvements or legacy, etc., can only happen to and by Madrid but somehow the other candidates just can't think of those things. :blink:

But hey, let's get Madrid to the head of the line. You know what happens then...

Comme Paris?!

They're lucky that Chicago is no longer as "windy" as it used to be, circa 1890s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's with the Madrid supporters playing a zero-sum game to prove their city's superiority over another city by denial, ie. stating that Chicago's playing field is just the Pan-Am games rather than the Olympics? Or pulling statistics out of nowhere without realizing how ridiculous some of the claims are (especially the facts related to airport statistics)! Dude, I can pull a statistic by taking a picture of the night sky near O'Hare and show about 15-20 planes hovering and lining up from all directions waiting to land in any given hour--talk about a busy airport! I hope it doesn't get as ugly as the 2012 bidding posts! I know I'm "new" here but I've been visiting the forum even before the 2012 bidding wars started and I know how it gets really ugly.

I would ask you not to generalise, because not all of us behave in that way. And O'Hare has been in the top 5 airports for traffic for years (even though it's share of international flights is smaller-as in any American airport- to many European airports including Madrid), but that I think is pretty irrelevant apart from proving than any of the four cities has an international airport capable of handling visitors in an Olympiad.

I must admit that people from Madrid do have a reputation in Spain as being egocentric. But so do citizens from big cities (especially if capital) around the World. It's not big deal.

In any case, about Chicago I would definitely rank it below NY and LA, at least in terms of international relevance. It does come third, even though I do think that there is a group of American cities all lined up roughly at the same point (again talking in terms of international outlook): Chicago, San Francisco, Dallas, Atlanta, Boston and Miami. There are obvious differences in population and size, but I think that all six have a strong grip. The second-tier areas such as Seattle, Philadephia, Detroit, Denver, Cleveland or Houston have a lesser relevance in terms of international influence (even though some are very important in certain areas such as Houston with oil). DC would be on a different category, since it is really a tightly focused capital city in a sense similar to Brussels when it comes to the EU.

That's how I see it from the other side of the pond. Chicago is clearly fighting for it's deserved third position ahead of the bunch it's usually mentioned in, and I do think it deserves to be a step above the other five maybe alongside San Francisco.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

M.O.S.. just FYI -- when the USOC launched its 2016 candidate search 3 years ago, it also undertook, I believe, two separate polls (one for within sports circles; and another general one) to gauge the perception of its 2016 finalist cities (Philadelphia, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, SF and LA) outside the US, and I think in both those instances Chicago came out slightly ahead of San Francisco. (LA was used as a gauge since it obviously has been a previous host and certainly because of Hollywood, is along with NYC, the other most prominent American metropolis.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

M.O.S.. just FYI -- when the USOC launched its 2016 candidate search 3 years ago, it also undertook, I believe, two separate polls (one for within sports circles; and another general one) to gauge the perception of its 2016 finalist cities (Philadelphia, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, SF and LA) outside the US, and I think in both those instances Chicago came out slightly ahead of San Francisco. (LA was used as a gauge since it obviously has been a previous host and certainly because of Hollywood, is along with NYC, the other most prominent American metropolis.)

It does make sense. Chicago has been a big city since the early 20th century and has been exposed internationally since. After all it is the birthplace of the modern skyscraper, and not NY as many believe. However other cities have developed rapidly and, I think, are equally powerful as Chicago. Dallas and Atlanta being probably the two most acute examples of such phenomenon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does make sense. Chicago has been a big city since the early 20th century and has been exposed internationally since. After all it is the birthplace of the modern skyscraper, and not NY as many believe. However other cities have developed rapidly and, I think, are equally powerful as Chicago. Dallas and Atlanta being probably the two most acute examples of such phenomenon.

Dallas is no where near Chicago on a lot of levels. Atlanta has developed significantly over the years (in part due to the Olympics), but it is not a competitor in many ways either. If you read any city forums, its Chicago people getting into fights with NY and LA people most of the time.

I don't really know what the argument is about. It is very clear to me that Chicago is the #3 city in the U.S. followed by (in no particular order) Houston, Boston, Philly, Atlanta, San Francisco, D.C, Miami, Seattle, Dallas and so on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me there's really no comparing the older Eastern-type cities of the US like NYC, Boston, Chicago, even SF to the large sprawls of LA, Houston or even Atlanta. It's like apples and oranges. I mean those Sunbelt cities -- are great to live in for sun-worshippers...but they just SUCK up the land AND the greatest resource of all...water!!

But then again, with the global warming phenomenon, I guess there's a design after all for those urban sprawls...they can suck all that extra water that the planet will be choking on soon.

Getting off his environmental soapbox...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would ask you not to generalise, because not all of us behave in that way. And O'Hare has been in the top 5 airports for traffic for years (even though it's share of international flights is smaller-as in any American airport- to many European airports including Madrid), but that I think is pretty irrelevant apart from proving than any of the four cities has an international airport capable of handling visitors in an Olympiad.

I must admit that people from Madrid do have a reputation in Spain as being egocentric. But so do citizens from big cities (especially if capital) around the World. It's not big deal.

In any case, about Chicago I would definitely rank it below NY and LA, at least in terms of international relevance. It does come third, even though I do think that there is a group of American cities all lined up roughly at the same point (again talking in terms of international outlook): Chicago, San Francisco, Dallas, Atlanta, Boston and Miami. There are obvious differences in population and size, but I think that all six have a strong grip. The second-tier areas such as Seattle, Philadephia, Detroit, Denver, Cleveland or Houston have a lesser relevance in terms of international influence (even though some are very important in certain areas such as Houston with oil). DC would be on a different category, since it is really a tightly focused capital city in a sense similar to Brussels when it comes to the EU.

That's how I see it from the other side of the pond. Chicago is clearly fighting for it's deserved third position ahead of the bunch it's usually mentioned in, and I do think it deserves to be a step above the other five maybe alongside San Francisco.

Ok, let me retract my generalization.

I can see your point that Chicago may seem to have less of a global influence because there isn't really a one definite sector where Chicago dominates--and this is probably good in the long run showing that our city is a lot more diversified than some cities who may rely on just one sector. Don't get me wrong but sometimes we also get suprised too when we hear Chicago ranking as #4 among the global centers of commerce, or #8 in the global cities index by Foreign Policy. Other American cities like LA or Seattle, or other cities may have a strong sector or a prominent industry but some of these centers of industry are controlled or funded by companies headquartered in New York or Chicago. Take the exchange/options example: the price of soybeans, cattles and other commodities from Brazil to Russia are determined and traded by Chicago's traders, with the Chicago Mercantile Exchange as its epicenter. In a way, the future price of your tofu or milk from your local grocery stores are determined in Chicago. So, to me I see Chicago's influence is not your typical mainstream global influence like London, New York, or Tokyo where it's really obvious. It's more of a behind the scene kind of thing.

The city's influence on global economics can also be felt through the idea of the Chicago school of economics; in architecture through the Chicago school of architecture. It may sound cocky, but a lot of prominent international architects come to Chicago to put a stamp on our skyline and architecture may well be one of our great exports. My point is that I'm happy that Chicago is bidding for the Olympics because this would also give us the opportunity to correct any myths, right any wrong, and to prove that Chicago is not your typical fly-over country where Al Capone is still king. I know we all can't agree on the definition of "influence" but we can surely grasp it through political power, money, and mainstream perception through media and movies. Chicago's image is the typical rustbelt city, a manufacturing center full of soot and grime, overrun by gangs. I mean c'mon, we've got the Untouchables, and the more fittingly, the musical CHICAGO to back it up right? Just half-kidding. On the other hand, San Francisco is the #2 most visited city by international visitors in the US. Is it because the city's image has been romantized so much with positivity through movies, songs, photography that few knows that it's also the largest shrinking city in the United States? Recent "discoveries" of the city from various magazines make the Chicago 2016 promotional video "Chicago Surprises" ring so true. I remember when Daley was talking about the Olympic bid a few years ago there were some people who were against it simply because the city would lose that kind of feeling of being America's best kept secret, a hidden jewel.

Btw, MOS, my posting has no intention of singling you out.

(http://www.electran.org/content/view/154/39/)

(http://www.mastercard.com/us/company/en/insights/pdfs/2008/MCWW_WCoC_Global_Press_Release.pdf)

(http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4509)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(clip)

The city's influence on global economics can also be felt through the idea of the Chicago school of economics; in architecture through the Chicago school of architecture. It may sound cocky, but a lot of prominent international architects come to Chicago to put a stamp on our skyline and architecture may well be one of our great exports. My point is that I'm happy that Chicago is bidding for the Olympics because this would also give us the opportunity to correct any myths, right any wrong, and to prove that Chicago is not your typical fly-over country where Al Capone is still king. I know we all can't agree on the definition of "influence" but we can surely grasp it through political power, money, and mainstream perception through media and movies. Chicago's image is the typical rustbelt city, a manufacturing center full of soot and grime, overrun by gangs. I mean c'mon, we've got the Untouchables, and the more fittingly, the musical CHICAGO to back it up right? Just half-kidding. On the other hand, San Francisco is the #2 most visited city by international visitors in the US. Is it because the city's image has been romantized so much with positivity through movies, songs, photography that few knows that it's also the largest shrinking city in the United States? Recent "discoveries" of the city from various magazines make the Chicago 2016 promotional video "Chicago Surprises" ring so true. I remember when Daley was talking about the Olympic bid a few years ago there were some people who were against it simply because the city would lose that kind of feeling of being America's best kept secret, a hidden jewel.

Btw, MOS, my posting has no intention of singling you out.

(http://www.electran.org/content/view/154/39/)

(http://www.mastercard.com/us/company/en/insights/pdfs/2008/MCWW_WCoC_Global_Press_Release.pdf)

(http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4509)

Judging Chicago on the basis of Al Capone is actually more ridiculous than judging Madrid on the basis of Francisco Franco -- who was actually alive and active about 10 years after Al Capone and who had a much longer term effect on his city than Capone (being a head of state vs. just being exceptionally criminal). Perhaps Americans should go over to Madrid and start asking for the "Francisco Franco" Fascist Sites Tour? Or composing MADRID the musical so that we can the world can finally learn the story of the Franco regime?

CHItown '16

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, let me retract my generalization.

I can see your point that Chicago may seem to have less of a global influence because there isn't really a one definite sector where Chicago dominates--and this is probably good in the long run showing that our city is a lot more diversified than some cities who may rely on just one sector. Don't get me wrong but sometimes we also get suprised too when we hear Chicago ranking as #4 among the global centers of commerce, or #8 in the global cities index by Foreign Policy. Other American cities like LA or Seattle, or other cities may have a strong sector or a prominent industry but some of these centers of industry are controlled or funded by companies headquartered in New York or Chicago. Take the exchange/options example: the price of soybeans, cattles and other commodities from Brazil to Russia are determined and traded by Chicago's traders, with the Chicago Mercantile Exchange as its epicenter. In a way, the future price of your tofu or milk from your local grocery stores are determined in Chicago. So, to me I see Chicago's influence is not your typical mainstream global influence like London, New York, or Tokyo where it's really obvious. It's more of a behind the scene kind of thing.

The city's influence on global economics can also be felt through the idea of the Chicago school of economics; in architecture through the Chicago school of architecture. It may sound cocky, but a lot of prominent international architects come to Chicago to put a stamp on our skyline and architecture may well be one of our great exports. My point is that I'm happy that Chicago is bidding for the Olympics because this would also give us the opportunity to correct any myths, right any wrong, and to prove that Chicago is not your typical fly-over country where Al Capone is still king. I know we all can't agree on the definition of "influence" but we can surely grasp it through political power, money, and mainstream perception through media and movies. Chicago's image is the typical rustbelt city, a manufacturing center full of soot and grime, overrun by gangs. I mean c'mon, we've got the Untouchables, and the more fittingly, the musical CHICAGO to back it up right? Just half-kidding. On the other hand, San Francisco is the #2 most visited city by international visitors in the US. Is it because the city's image has been romantized so much with positivity through movies, songs, photography that few knows that it's also the largest shrinking city in the United States? Recent "discoveries" of the city from various magazines make the Chicago 2016 promotional video "Chicago Surprises" ring so true. I remember when Daley was talking about the Olympic bid a few years ago there were some people who were against it simply because the city would lose that kind of feeling of being America's best kept secret, a hidden jewel.

Btw, MOS, my posting has no intention of singling you out.

(http://www.electran.org/content/view/154/39/)

(http://www.mastercard.com/us/company/en/insights/pdfs/2008/MCWW_WCoC_Global_Press_Release.pdf)

(http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4509)

It's fine, don't worry :)

About the trading of commodities, I found that out not very long ago and I must say I was quite surprised. But again, few people know that the price of oil is set in London and not in the Middle East or in Vienna (where the OPEC HQ is). In any case, I only put the Bay Area up there with Chicago because I reckon Silicon Valley is still the World's most important technological hotspot.

Chicago is a city that's been on my wish list for quite a long time. Despite the awful winter, I guess it's a city I could perfectly live in. It's not NY, but it's by no means provincial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further, I think the other European countries are WISE enough to know WHEN to time their bids...unlike a certain Iberian city which has the "Istanbul syndrome."

Did you think the same when Paris bid for the 2008 Games, or when Athens and Manchester did so for 1996, or when Falun and Cortina d'Ampezzo bid for 1988 WG? And what about Los Angeles (in the USA) bidding for 1980 just after Montreal 1976 or Lillehammer bidding (and winning) for 1994 after Albertville 1992?

Are the Spanish the only ones who aren't wise enough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you think the same when Paris bid for the 2008 Games, or when Athens and Manchester did so for 1996, or when Falun and Cortina d'Ampezzo bid for 1988 WG? And what about Los Angeles (in the USA) bidding for 1980 just after Montreal 1976 or Lillehammer bidding (and winning) for 1994 after Albertville 1992?

Are the Spanish the only ones who aren't wise enough?

Good points, but continental rotation was more subjective back in the 1970's bids than it is today. Athens of course bid for 1996 only because of the 100 year milestone, and Manchester should not have put forth a bid.

I am not against cities bidding again after the same continental host (if done intelligently), and Madrid I guess wanted to bid in a contest when they had no other competition from their own continent - that is probably the only chance they would have to host the Games in the next two decades. I do feel that Madrid is kind of wasting its time and money, because there are three other capable host cities that can host a fantastic Games, and it gives the IOC good reason to continue its path of unofficial continental rotation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you think the same when Paris bid for the 2008 Games, or when Athens and Manchester did so for 1996, or when Falun and Cortina d'Ampezzo bid for 1988 WG? And what about Los Angeles (in the USA) bidding for 1980 just after Montreal 1976 or Lillehammer bidding (and winning) for 1994 after Albertville 1992?

Are the Spanish the only ones who aren't wise enough?

Well, I obviously can't speak for Paris -- but I think Paris and Los Angeles (and London and New York) are in a different class by themselves. They are really the premier cities of what we know today as western civilization, and they will always have a lot going for them regardless of year.

As for past biddings, remember that the cost of bidding then might've been $500,000 or maybe a $1 or $2 million. Easy enough to raise back then. But it has become so competitive now and the bids are so well-honed that to mount a credible bid, you've got to least have $40 mil in the bank to spend.

Madrid really isn't in the same league as London, Paris, NYC, LA or even Tokyo -- in terms of world importance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Madrid really isn't in the same league as London, Paris, NYC, LA or even Tokyo -- in terms of world importance.

Sure, but I feel many people here think Madrid is the one who does everything wrong, when some other big cities (the best exemple is Paris) did the same "silly thing" not many years ago, and it didn't seem to be a problem or a waste of money and time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I obviously can't speak for Paris -- but I think Paris and Los Angeles (and London and New York) are in a different class by themselves. They are really the premier cities of what we know today as western civilization, and they will always have a lot going for them regardless of year.

As for past biddings, remember that the cost of bidding then might've been $500,000 or maybe a $1 or $2 million. Easy enough to raise back then. But it has become so competitive now and the bids are so well-honed that to mount a credible bid, you've got to least have $40 mil in the bank to spend.

Madrid really isn't in the same league as London, Paris, NYC, LA or even Tokyo -- in terms of world importance.

So Madrid isnt in the same league... what about Rio and Chicago? Would you say they are? Of course not. That reasoning is just ridiculous because back in 1988 the Games were in Seoul and I wouldnt say that city was or is a city of such an importance.

You just can´t stop looking for weird stuff against Madrid.... but anyway, I just think that when someone is wasting his time so much against Madrid is because he thinks it´s the real contender... if not, you would be focusing in other things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Madrid isnt in the same league... what about Rio and Chicago? Would you say they are? Of course not. That reasoning is just ridiculous because back in 1988 the Games were in Seoul and I wouldnt say that city was or is a city of such an importance.

You just can´t stop looking for weird stuff against Madrid.... but anyway, I just think that when someone is wasting his time so much against Madrid is because he thinks it´s the real contender... if not, you would be focusing in other things.

I think the same, if everyone is against Madrid is because They see in Madrid 2016 the strongest bid and the winner of the race.

¡Saludos!

www.tengounacorazonada.com

www.madrid2016.es

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Madrid isnt in the same league... what about Rio and Chicago? Would you say they are? Of course not. That reasoning is just ridiculous because back in 1988 the Games were in Seoul and I wouldnt say that city was or is a city of such an importance.

You just can´t stop looking for weird stuff against Madrid.... but anyway, I just think that when someone is wasting his time so much against Madrid is because he thinks it´s the real contender... if not, you would be focusing in other things.

Against Chicago and Rio, Madrid's probably about the same (either an A- or a B+ city). But we're not measuring the 2016 cities against each other -- if anything maybe Tokyo would be ahead of the pack in terms of global importance. But then again, the 2 things going against Tokyo in this round are: (1) they've had it before; and (2) Beijing was just last year...

Seoul? Well, it was up against the #3 Japanese city. A #1/capital city vs. a #3 city in a 2-horse race? :rolleyes: And the way the JOC/Nagoyans acted during the 1981 campaign was well, exactly how the 1996 Greek delegation acted in 1990 in, of all places...Tokyo. People never learn.

To which I would add repeatedly: Atlanta's 1996 victory was a fluke. But the favorite (Athens) simply was NOT ready; a lot of IOC'ers saw that; and the gung-ho Atlantans were there ready to take the slack. Athens should've known. I think in the past, Sparta bested them one way or another. (The point is moot, but Atlanta is indeed a C+ city; and so was Antwerp and probably Helsinki. But that's all history now.)

You call it ridiculous; I say the same to you. You know what sets of markers we're measuring Madrid vs. whichever cities...in whichever time frame. The thing is: being in the right place at the right time. That's the key to anything in life, including winning or losing an Olympic bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Against Chicago and Rio, Madrid's probably about the same (either an A- or a B+ city). But we're not measuring the 2016 cities against each other -- if anything maybe Tokyo would be ahead of the pack in terms of global importance. But then again, the 2 things going for Tokyo in this round are: (1) they've had it before; and (2) Beijing was just last year...

Seoul? Well, it was up against the #3 Japanese city. A #1/capital city vs. a #3 city in a 2-horse race? :rolleyes: And the way the JOC/Nagoyans acted during the 1981 campaign was well, exactly how the 1996 Greek delegation acted in 1990 in, of all places...Tokyo. People never learn.

To which I would add repeatedly: Atlanta's 1996 victory was a fluke. But the favorite (Athens) simply was NOT ready; a lot of IOC'ers saw that; and the gung-ho Atlantans were there ready to take the slack. Athens should've known. I think in the past, Sparta bested them one way or another. (The point is moot, but Atlanta is indeed a C+ city; and so was Antwerp and probably Helsinki. But that's all history now.)

You call it ridiculous; I say the same to you. You know what sets of markers we're measuring Madrid vs. whichever cities...in whichever time frame. The thing is: being in the right place at the right time. That's the key to anything in life, including winning or losing an Olympic bid.

Completely agree with you. And even more after just coming back from Atlanta.

The thing is that sometimes it´s impossible to know when is the best time to do things, so you just have to be there in case something good comes along the way... and I think that´s what Madrid is doing, they will kep trying until they get it, and I think it´s the right thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Completely agree with you. And even more after just coming back from Atlanta.

The thing is that sometimes it´s impossible to know when is the best time to do things, so you just have to be there in case something good comes along the way... and I think that´s what Madrid is doing, they will kep trying until they get it, and I think it´s the right thing to do.

Sounds a lot like what they used to say a few decades back--in the 50s and 60s when the Democrats kept nominating the same candidate for President year after year--you don't have to vote for him this year, he'll be back in 4 years.

CHItown '16

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds a lot like what they used to say a few decades back--in the 50s and 60s when the Democrats kept nominating the same candidate for President year after year--you don't have to vote for him this year, he'll be back in 4 years.

CHItown '16

I guess you dont know the meaning of Being Constant! If you really want something in life you have to try as many times as you want to get it. I dont see something wrong with it... but anyway, as I said in a previous post, so many people against Madrid means it´s the best bid and you just dont want it to be there neither this year or in the future. Too sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it´s the best bid

Well, on paper it may be the 'best' bid...but that doesn't take into account the climate. Madrid is brutal in July and August. Rio, by far, offers the most desirable climate to stage the summer Games. That, and a new setting, are equally strong factors to offset a so-called 'best' bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, on paper it may be the 'best' bid...but that doesn't take into account the climate. Madrid is brutal in July and August. Rio, by far, offers the most desirable climate to stage the summer Games. That, and a new setting, are equally strong factors to offset a so-called 'best' bid.

Have you ever come to Madrid in the past? Yes, it´s hot... just like Athens ( I would say Athens is even worst). Have you ever gone to Beijing? Well, Beijing in summer is like hell... so what? Madrid in summer is just hot, and I never saw people burning in the streets for that, in fact, is not as hot as other places in Europe or just as much as it can be in Rome, but I assure you that life can happen here in Summer... this is not Mars.

I just can´t believe the bunch of lies you all are willing to put into this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, on paper it may be the 'best' bid...but that doesn't take into account the climate. Madrid is brutal in July and August. Rio, by far, offers the most desirable climate to stage the summer Games. That, and a new setting, are equally strong factors to offset a so-called 'best' bid.

Well, average temperature in Rio in the winter never goes under 25ºC. Madrid's average in August is roughly 28-29ºC. Plus Madrid's weather is dry as it gets, whilst Rio is much more humid. I would say Madrid is hotter, but not by much. You do get 35ºC during midday on average say, but from 6-7pm onwards the temperature drops down as the sun sets, and can be in the mid 20s. At night it can drop as far as 20ºC or even a bit less, 18-19ºC. That's 15 degrees between day and night. So temperature in Madrid varies a lot because of its continental climate characteristics.

I guess prime time events would be running from 7 to 9 pm, especially athletics, as in any Olympiad. The only real problem would be outdoor races like the marathon, but they too can be done in the early morning or late evening to avoid the central hours of sun (the sun in Madrid, because of it's timezone, is highest between 1 and 4 pm).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you ever come to Madrid in the past? Yes, it´s hot... just like Athens ( I would say Athens is even worst). Have you ever gone to Beijing? Well, Beijing in summer is like hell... so what? Madrid in summer is just hot, and I never saw people burning in the streets for that, in fact, is not as hot as other places in Europe or just as much as it can be in Rome, but I assure you that life can happen here in Summer... this is not Mars.

I just can´t believe the bunch of lies you all are willing to put into this forum.

Yes, I was in Madrid in July 1992, before proceeding to Sevilla and Barcelona. So I well know what I experienced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...