Jump to content

Questions Remain


Recommended Posts

Displacement

The Evaluation Report stated that 300 families will be uprooted for the Olympic Village venue. It was said that they were in "illegal settlements." Will any of the other bid cities displace people? One of Beijing's main criticisms was that it tried to cover up its problems instead of trying to solve them. I think this is a big risk for Rio as well.

White Elephants

With all the money spent on white elephant stadiums for the World Cup, what makes you think the same wouldn't be done for Olympic venues?

Crime

Around the time that the evaluation report was released, a shoot-out on a highway near Rio's airport caused the road to be closed down, and people were hiding behind their cars. Yet, the IOC report just called these things "challenges." No other bidding city has such rampant crime. It should be a bigger concern, as the Olympics are more spread out than Carnival and even the Pan Ams.

Lower Country Support

The Evaluation report listed support in the city at 85%, but country support was at 69%. It just shows how people outside Brazil have their doubts as well.

Lost Capital Status

If Rio is so great, why was it removed as the capital of Brazil in 1960?

Why the rush?

Brazil should take some more time to prepare, and not try to host MASSIVE events just two years apart. Believe me, it will go much better if Rio hosts in 2028 or beyond. Wake up IOC, Rio is too risky! There will be more chances for them to host, just not now. How can a country who did not even make the shortlist for 2012 be considered "able" just four years later?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Displacement

The Evaluation Report stated that 300 families will be uprooted for the Olympic Village venue. It was said that they were in "illegal settlements." Will any of the other bid cities displace people? One of Beijing's main criticisms was that it tried to cover up its problems instead of trying to solve them. I think this is a big risk for Rio as well.

White Elephants

With all the money spent on white elephant stadiums for the World Cup, what makes you think the same wouldn't be done for Olympic venues?

Crime

Around the time that the evaluation report was released, a shoot-out on a highway near Rio's airport caused the road to be closed down, and people were hiding behind their cars. Yet, the IOC report just called these things "challenges." No other bidding city has such rampant crime. It should be a bigger concern, as the Olympics are more spread out than Carnival and even the Pan Ams.

Lower Country Support

The Evaluation report listed support in the city at 85%, but country support was at 69%. It just shows how people outside Brazil have their doubts as well.

Lost Capital Status

If Rio is so great, why was it removed as the capital of Brazil in 1960?

Why the rush?

Brazil should take some more time to prepare, and not try to host MASSIVE events just two years apart. Believe me, it will go much better if Rio hosts in 2028 or beyond. Wake up IOC, Rio is too risky! There will be more chances for them to host, just not now. How can a country who did not even make the shortlist for 2012 be considered "able" just four years later?

Displacement

As you said, they are in "illegal settlements". They should be removed with or without Olympics.

White Elephants

Flawed argument.

Crime

The Evaluation Report spoke for itself.

Lower Country Support

Let's talk about Tokyo support?

Lost Capital Status

If you do not know, google it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Displacement

The Evaluation Report stated that 300 families will be uprooted for the Olympic Village venue. It was said that they were in "illegal settlements." Will any of the other bid cities displace people? One of Beijing's main criticisms was that it tried to cover up its problems instead of trying to solve them. I think this is a big risk for Rio as well.

300 families must be replaced for their own safety. They are in risky area. It is not to happen because Rio is bidding.

White Elephants

With all the money spent on white elephant stadiums for the World Cup, what makes you think the same wouldn't be done for Olympic venues?

I think you missed the point. No stadium is supposed to be built in Rio for 2014 WC. Remember some stadia need modernization: Maracanã and São Januário. There is also another one, JH. The three of the are used by Football Clubs. So, elephants, but not white.

Crime

Around the time that the evaluation report was released, a shoot-out on a highway near Rio's airport caused the road to be closed down, and people were hiding behind their cars. Yet, the IOC report just called these things "challenges." No other bidding city has such rampant crime. It should be a bigger concern, as the Olympics are more spread out than Carnival and even the Pan Ams.

I think you haven´t read the EC report.

Lower Country Support

The Evaluation report listed support in the city at 85%, but country support was at 69%. It just shows how people outside Brazil have their doubts as well.

Brazil - as Spain, USA and Japan - is a democracy.People here are free to think and say whathever they want. Where there is an unanimous thought, you may be sure there is something wrong there. Pay attention, thsse numbers have increased and are already a huge demonstration of support.

Lost Capital Status

If Rio is so great, why was it removed as the capital of Brazil in 1960?

Because since the Independence in 1822, it was a question of national development strategy to have as capital a city far from the shore line.

Why the rush?

Brazil should take some more time to prepare, and not try to host MASSIVE events just two years apart. Believe me, it will go much better if Rio hosts in 2028 or beyond. Wake up IOC, Rio is too risky! There will be more chances for them to host, just not now. How can a country who did not even make the shortlist for 2012 be considered "able" just four years later?

Now, your opinions are up to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
/\ /\ Very valid points.

Sir, instead of criticizing other cities´s bids, why don´t find something worthy in your own city and share with us. This way, Sir, you look like that old woman who always complains of something.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think the EC report was very leniant on Rio's crime and didn't tally with concerns I've heard elsewhere. Other concerns - such as white elephants - are more local and will not directly affect those travelling to Rio; so I'll leave the Brazilians to argue those out. The capital status is irrelevent. LA, Barcelona, Atlanta, Sydney anyone?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lower Country Support

Lost Capital Status

Why the rush?

Lower Country Support:

69-70% is enough for me...

And about the other 30% who's doesn't care and who's against???

Indeed the rivalry between Rio and Sao Paulo (the most populated state of Brazil). In Sao Paulo there are people against Rio 2016, just because is... Rio...

And Japan is in worst situation than Rio... Madrid got similar numbers, and Chicago have a organized movement that is very very against the bid...

Lost Capital Status:

Since Independence in 1822, Brazilians believed that is too dangerous, military speaking, to have the capital in the coast. It was stated in the 1934 Brazilian constitution that Brazilian capital should not be placed near frontiers nor coasts, and preferable in the center of Brazil to develop other regions... That's why Brasili was inaugurated in 1960. Brasilia was planned to be a capital with all infra-structure for this... Rio did not LOST status...

Same discussion was made in the US, to send the capital to the middle of land...

For a Olympic Bid, this is a stupid discussion! Why Philadelphia lost the status of capital.. Why Buenos Aires was abandoned for its entire population and then it was refounded... Why Italy gave part of Rome to Catholic Church.... It doesn't matter for a Olympic Bid.

Why the rush?:

Why lose all the momentum? After PanAms, while organizing World Cup? In a round without all European cities? With a extraordinary growth of GDP? With Brazil in the mood geopolitically speaking?

And if Rio loses (as you want), Rio got more experience... We all know that experience counts for future bids...

And you can't imagine how Brazil is changing... Brazil was a country when I was a child, now it's completely different...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say some of these points are valid. I do feel like the Rio EC report was sugar coated.

What amazes me most is how the IOC brought up more detailed transit issues in Chicago, but kind of glossed over them for Rio. Chicago has a much more comprehensive transit plan, and maybe Chicago 2016 did not communicate it as well as Rio did.

I would say the public support and capital change are really the only two points that don't have any bearing. The amount of new venue construction, crime, displacement and WC 2014 should be extensively considered by the voting IOC members.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What amazes me most is how the IOC brought up more detailed transit issues in Chicago, but kind of glossed over them for Rio. Chicago has a much more comprehensive transit plan, and maybe Chicago 2016 did not communicate it as well as Rio did.

Rio is a easy city to go around... Indeed, if you go north, it's mountains, if you go south it's beach...

I don't know much about Chicago transit and traffic. SO I WILL NOT SAY NOTHING ABOUT A THING I DON'T KNOW!!!

But Rio has some traffic jams during rush hour only (8-10am 5-7pm) and during vacations (when it's planned SOG in Rio) Rio have no big issues about traffic.

The bus system in Rio works well, but there are many many many many many many many many buses and this causes traffic jams.

Rio is not Sao Paulo, Bombay or Mexico City, it common to imagine all big cities in the developing country with endless traffic jams - it's not Rio de Janeiro case.

but of course, Rio is not any major planned american city...

Link to post
Share on other sites
The amount of new venue construction, crime, displacement and WC 2014 should be extensively considered by the voting IOC members.

Amount of new venue construction?

- Rio: 7 planned + 2 additional permanent + 6 additional temporary (total 15, including main aquatics venue)

- Chicago: 1 planned + 6 additional permanent + 9 additional temporary (total 16, including Olympic Stadium and aquatics venue)

- Tokyo: 10 additional permanent + 7 additional temporary (total 17, including Olympic Stadium and aquatics venue)

- Madrid: 2 planned + 6 additional permanent + 2 additional temporary (total 10)

Only Madrid stands out in this category. Then you have Rio and Chicago, then Tokyo.

Hardly a weakness of Rio.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but I have seen maps of your roadways, and figures about public transit. Rio is no where near the same level as Chicago public transit and highways, and Rio has nearly three times as many people! Even some on here argue that one of the driving forces for poverty in the favelas is a lack of transit that can connect them to opportunities/jobs.

In saying that, Madrid and Tokyo have a much better public transit layout than Chicago, but I was just comparing EC notes on Rio and Chicago transit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Amount of new venue construction?

- Rio: 7 planned + 2 additional permanent + 6 additional temporary (total 15, including main aquatics venue)

- Chicago: 1 planned + 6 additional permanent + 9 additional temporary (total 16, including Olympic Stadium and aquatics venue)

- Tokyo: 10 additional permanent + 7 additional temporary (total 17, including Olympic Stadium and aquatics venue)

- Madrid: 2 planned + 6 additional permanent + 2 additional temporary (total 10)

Only Madrid stands out in this category. Then you have Rio and Chicago, then Tokyo.

Hardly a weakness of Rio.

Your numbers are correct, but you fail to consider "Existing venues with permanent work required"

Let's look directly to the Evaluation Report...

Chicago

chicago-venues.gif

- 0 existing venues that need work

- 7 permanent venues need to be built (some will be scaled down, and not needing permanent features)

- 9 Temporary venues

Total = 16

Rio de Janiero

rio-venues.gif

- 8 existing venues that need work

- 9 permanent venues need to be built (some will be scaled down, and not needing permanent features)

- 6 Temporary venues

Total = 23

Tokyo

tokyo-venues.gif

- 2 existing venues that need work

- 10 permanent venues need to be built (some will be scaled down, and not needing permanent features)

- 7 Temporary venues

Total = 19

Chicago has the least amount of permanent venues to be built, and all existing venues need no permanent work. Rio is the weakest, not Tokyo (although red flags did emerge from the bid book regarding Tokyo's venues).

Rio planning to build seven venues irregardless of the Games makes no difference (Madrid said the same thing about their stadium). If they plan to build these venues anyway, I say pass them up for 2016, and let them build it, and we can talk about a 2024 bid or beyond. It is much less risky.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Your numbers are correct, but you fail to consider "Existing venues with permanent work required"

Point taken but you mentioned "new venue construction" which is why I didn't include the existing venues.

Madrid (which you have omitted) is still the city with the largest number of existing venues with no permanent work required.

As for your assessment about Rio being the weakest, I think it's difficult to be so blunt: one can hardly compare in terms of risk and complexity, for example, Rio needing to expend JA Stadium from 45,000 to 60,000 (the stadium has been built with the extension in mind) with Rio building a new 100,000-seater stadium. I don't have the engineering skills to do that.

In my opinion, the number of venues to be built is not a weakness for Rio.

The other sources of concer (overall Games Concept, transportation, accommodation, security) are valid though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant to say venue construction, not just "new venue construction."

Yes, we can all agree that Madrid is by far the "safest choice" when it comes to venue construction, but they seem to have other issues that were pointed out in the bid book (cosmetic and communication). Also, geopolitically they are the worst affected.

I view it as a weakness, because it makes their bid all the more risky. It would be risky enough to have these issues without World Cup pressure, but it makes it all the more difficult adding to the demands.

In terms of venue development risk I have to say it goes Rio - Tokyo - Chicago - Madrid. Also, Chicago boasts an extremely compact plan with the the IBC and MBC already built.

Chicago seems to be a happy medium on most everything the IOC is looking for in a host city. This may only be Chicago only chance to host. Rio and Brazil will most certainly try again if this bid fails.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant to write -

I view Rio's venue proposals as a weakness, because it makes their bid all the more risky. It would be risky enough to have these issues without World Cup pressure, but it makes it all the more difficult adding to the demands.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I meant to write -

I view Rio's venue proposals as a weakness, because it makes their bid all the more risky. It would be risky enough to have these issues without World Cup pressure, but it makes it all the more difficult adding to the demands.

I see as a Chicago bid's weackness the lack of government support. Don't you. Even if it is guaranteed by now, getting it so lately seems like a weackness. What do you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to me. In fact, I view Chicago's financing as a legacy in itself. I think having governments issuing blank checks to their city's OC is a recipe for budget overruns, and it makes hosting the Olympics less appealing to citizens and countries (why do you think Tokyo has such low support, and the press had a field day with Athens, and now Vancouver and London).

The IOC needs to be careful, because if they continue on this path of picking cities that will run massive budgets and potential overruns, the only bidders left will be U.S. cities... (being a bit dramatic in that point)

If Chicago is chosen to host, I hope it would shine as a model to other countries about financing the Games, just as LA became a blueprint of sorts, Chicago has the potential to continue that path.

There is $2 billion in overrun insurance. If we needed to use that, the tax payers still would not have to pay a dime for the overruns. Plus the city and state have $750 million in addition to insurance, and now the city will guarantee to pay for any overruns. The federal government has also agreed to pay for security, and infrastructure improvements to public transit "that will meet Olympic needs."

I hardly call this a "lack of support." I call this "thought-out planning that will protect tax payers, and serve as a model for future host cities to keep costs down, and efficient in Games planning."

Link to post
Share on other sites

You see, where someone finds a weackness, someone else may find a strength. I see the way I said. You sai the way you see. If we keep going honest to ourselves, I think this entire process will be a great moment to understand each other's view. But this is not the way I see things going on the thing in this forum. Many times with prejudice to Rio and Brazil.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brazil lost its capital status because in the Brazilian Constitution it stated that the Capital should be moved to the geographical center of the country. The location was chosen for many reasons being one of them to be better protected military. But it was not until 1955, after the election of Juscelino Kubitschek as president that something was done about it. JK idealized the construction of Brasilia (the new capital) as part of his a series of plan to develop the infrastructure and the manufacturing sector in Brazil.

So, Rio did not lose the status, a new capital was built, like Washington DC.

In my opinion, this was a very bad decision. The construction of Brasilia depleted the Federal Funds leaving a big debt and inflation. Rio continued to be the center of the Brazilian culture, but without the capital status, governments abandoned it, especially during the military ruling. Since the mid 90's, Rio has been recovering due to the perception of its importance to the country and currently hosts the 3 largest companies in Brazil: Petrobras, Vale do Rio Doce and Oi.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You see, where someone finds a weackness, someone else may find a strength. I see the way I said. You sai the way you see. If we keep going honest to ourselves, I think this entire process will be a great moment to understand each other's view. But this is not the way I see things going on the thing in this forum. Many times with prejudice to Rio and Brazil.

Yes, I agree that one may see a weakness, while the other a strength. I myself think Rio 2016 will have a great legacy, but of course I support my hometown. Tokyo, Madrid and Rio all offer basically the same guarantee, and now Chicago too. But each city brings something different to the table, and Chicago does have an interesting concept.

We shall see if the IOC takes to Chicago's way of guaranteeing funding. In the end it really will be down to Rio's emotional heartstrings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...