Cidade Maravilhosa

October 2, 2009 12:03 PM

Seeking to be the first Green Olympics, Brazil wins its bid to be the first ever South American nation to host the 2016 games.

For your listening pleasure, two songs about Rio, an acoustic version of Cidade Maravilhosa by Caetano Veloso, and Aquele abraço by our man, Gilberto Gil.

posted by msali (108 comments total)

Yay Brazil!
posted by box at 12:05 PM on October 2

Brazil is the first and only nation to host the 2016 games, since those will only happen once. But we might have more Olympic games in South America.
posted by LogicalDash at 12:06 PM on October 2 [8 favorites]

I have been conducting a secret love affair with South America - and special emphasis on Brazil - since 2004 or so. Maybe if I start saving now...
posted by muddgirl at 12:06 PM on October 2

I can't wait to be flyin' down to Rio, Goin' to Brazil
posted by stargell at 12:08 PM on October 2

Daaamn. Our soccer fiends are screwed.
posted by grubi at 12:10 PM on October 2 [2 favorites]

That sound you hear is sixty thousand of Rio's finest pickpockets all cheering at the same time.
posted by rokusan at 12:11 PM on October 2 [12 favorites]

Good luck to them. I ding a little bell to the IOC in thanks for not bringing their plague upon my town.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 12:12 PM on October 2 [5 favorites]

Yay for South America! They deserve the opportunity to host, and after three bids, it's about time. Plus, I feel we really dodged a bullet here in Chicago. Whew.
posted by heyho at 12:15 PM on October 2 [1 favorite]

Braaaaaaaziiiiiiiiiiiiiil!
posted by The Whelk at 12:16 PM on October 2

Hooray for Rio!
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:16 PM on October 2

I see no reason we couldn't have several south american olympic games in 2016, except for the fact we'd have to put up with those extremely annoying Canadian Broadcasting Corporation announcers going on and on about how Canada is 123rd in the medal standings....
posted by sporb at 12:16 PM on October 2

As a Chicagoan: YAY BRAZIL!!! Rio is gorgeous and it's time for South America to have a chance to host.

I'm pretty sure Daley must have killed Chicago's chances with his horrible boorish American personality and Oprah "Look at Me I'm a Rich Celebrity!" probably didn't help either.
posted by Jess the Mess at 12:17 PM on October 2

So I notice that all sorts of right wing blogs are like, "HA! YOU SUCK CHICAGO!"

I'm confused by this. Is it because Obama was from Chicago and Obama championed having the games there and they hate Obama and therefore they hate us having the Olympics?
posted by kbanas at 12:18 PM on October 2 [4 favorites]

rokusan, I wouldn't worry about that. What's more likely is that people will see police officers In. Every. Corner.
Unless drug traffickers decide to go on all-out civil war against the city, in which case they're better armed and everyone's screwed. But that's unlikely - all in all they thrive on the current social structure. Also, their income is mostly from drugs, not petty theft.
What is more likely is that the druglords will themselves enforce against petty crime (believe me, if the drug lord from your slum tells you to not pickpocket, you DON'T), and in exchange the police will look the other way while they become the extra-official provider of cocaine for wealthy tourists.
posted by qvantamon at 12:18 PM on October 2 [3 favorites]

Only Americans would think that Oprah trumps Pele.
posted by stargell at 12:20 PM on October 2 [12 favorites]

I trust that reporters covering the Games there will have a better time than they did here in Salt Lake City.
posted by Joe Beese at 12:21 PM on October 2 [4 favorites]

So, wait, I can walk through the Olympic Village and people will sneak packets of cocaine into my pockets?

Braaaaaaaziiiiiiiiiiiiiil!
posted by rokusan at 12:21 PM on October 2 [9 favorites]

I predict opening ceremonies so sexy they make a Quebecois stripper blush.
posted by Keith Talent at 12:24 PM on October 2 [19 favorites]

Green. Heh. When we were kids, we occasionally put on our own neighborhood Olympics. We awarded prizes to the top four finishers in each sport: Gold, Silver, Bronze, and Green.

I don't know why we chose Green, either.

Good for Rio and at least Madrid didn't win. After that old fascist Juan Antonio Samaranch basically made Madrid 2016 his dying wish, I thought for sure that's the way the IOC was going to vote.
posted by notyou at 12:24 PM on October 2 [1 favorite]

I know--with Chicago's, what, 9% unemployment rate, you guys totally lucked out with the choice of Rio. Hooray!

But hats off to Brazil. I will drink a Caipirinha tonight in your honor.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 12:25 PM on October 2

My first thought on this was, huh, they're going to get hot. Then I checked and I discovered that Rio is way more temperate than I expected, with the average high in August at 78F (with the coolest month being July and the warmest month being February). So I have to say that the Olympics in Rio, in August, sounds ridiculously nice to me.

I'm confused by this. Is it because Obama was from Chicago and Obama championed having the games there and they hate Obama and therefore they hate us having the Olympics?

You're not confused.
posted by empyrean at 12:25 PM on October 2 [3 favorites]

Getting the Olympics in 1996 didn't do Atlanta any favors. I hope it's a boon to Rio and Brazil, but I won't be holding my breath.
posted by notashroom at 12:27 PM on October 2 [1 favorite]

Oh Rio, Rio, hear them shout across the land...
posted by 1f2frfbf at 12:28 PM on October 2 [3 favorites]

kbanas: "Is it because Obama was from Chicago and Obama championed having the games there and they hate Obama and therefore they hate us having the Olympics?"

In fairness, would any of us have been that thrilled if George W. had been the first President to lobby in person and - being successful - thus enriched his hometown cronies?
posted by Joe Beese at 12:28 PM on October 2 [4 favorites]

and Oprah "Look at Me I'm a Rich Celebrity!" probably didn't help either

I forget if it was Colbert or Stewart who made the remark about sending over 'Michelle O'B'Oprah' to Copenhagen but it made me snort beer through my nose.
posted by mannequito at 12:29 PM on October 2

with the coolest month being July and the warmest month being February

There's that pesky equator, getting in the way of understanding the seasonal changes on the planet again.
posted by hippybear at 12:29 PM on October 2 [4 favorites]

> Is it because Obama was from Chicago and Obama championed having the games there and they hate Obama and therefore they hate us having the Olympics?

Anything they think makes Obama look bad makes them happy.
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:30 PM on October 2

All disputes over results will be handled by Information Retrieval.
posted by InfidelZombie at 12:31 PM on October 2 [3 favorites]

Does any American give a crap about the Olympics? I'm trying real hard but.. wait.. no... wai--- nope. Can't.
posted by xmutex at 12:35 PM on October 2

> Getting the Olympics in 1996 didn't do Atlanta any favors. I hope it's a boon to Rio and Brazil, but I won't be holding my breath.

"Long-term benefits are another matter. Civic pride aroused from such an endeavor is fleeting and the monuments built for the spectacle in the form of stadiums and sporting venues shortly become little more than ghostly reminders of once glorious days. In point of fact, the historical record of long-term benefit from Olympic-related sports facilities is one indelibly burdened by maintenance and operation costs that rise well above user fee revenue."

Thank your lucky stars, Chicago.
posted by Stonewall Jackson at 12:36 PM on October 2

I trust that reporters covering the Games there will have a better time than they did here in Salt Lake City.

Sure they will, Joe Beese. Don't you know how the reporters' old song goes?

"...there's an awful lot of copy in Brazil...."
posted by Jody Tresidder at 12:39 PM on October 2

Stonewall Jackson: "Thank your lucky stars, Chicago."

To wit:

Anti-Olympians are unwilling to bleed even more money for a Games they see as a vanity project to revive Daley's approval ratings, and a boondoggle that will benefit the city's elite, at the expense of ordinary Chicagoans. When the IOC demanded that the city cover all cost overruns, the City Council voted 49-0 to guarantee unlimited public funds. Even though the Council will have oversight over Olympic spending, there's a suspicion that the Olympic Village, the velodrome, the swimming pool, the white-water rafting course, the hurdles and the starting blocks will all be built by the mayor's pals, at inflated prices. That's how Chicago works. ...

Obama is risking an international embarrassment in Denmark to help the mayor who backed his presidential campaign. But his friends stand to benefit, too. As Time magazine reported, the 13-member bid committee includes FOBs John Rogers Jr. and Marty Nesbitt, who have supported Obama since he was the long-shot black candidate for the U.S. Senate. And "many of Obama's biggest boosters are heavily invested in the real estate and tourism industry."
posted by Joe Beese at 12:44 PM on October 2

Yeah, but Stonewall Jackson, you neglected to include the immediately subsequent paragraph:

"With few exceptions, unless Olympic sports facilities have great post-Games mass appeal for public use (or are dismantled and materials recycled as was Chicago’s plan)..."

Just sayin' we have lots of folks sitting around doing nothing and struggling to make ends meet who could have been employed had Chicago won the bid. Headaches of living/working in a host city notwithstanding, I think the "yay! we lost!" mentality is a little glib in these economic times.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 12:44 PM on October 2

Remember, in 2005, when New York was eliminated as a host city for the 2012 Olympics, and liberals everywhere giggled like children and mocked the Bush administration?

Oh wait, that didn't happen.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:45 PM on October 2 [1 favorite]

Sweet! Rio was likely the only candidate that might profit from the games. I hope they're show puts the chinese to shame, not by out spending them, but by out sexing them.
posted by jeffburdges at 12:46 PM on October 2

Huh. Maybe it was all the torture, the disrespect of the UN, the two needless wars, the inner turmoil of the last 8 years, the global economic downturn brought on by AIG, Goldman Sachs, unscrupulous banks, and politically neutered regulators that turned them off on the US in general.
posted by peppito at 12:48 PM on October 2 [2 favorites]

I was a fan of the Chicago 2016 bid from the very start. As such, it'll be a while before this sting wears off.

I do take solace in the large number of folks in this city that advocated against the games and are satisfied with the results. Obviously, they see this as a blessing instead of a curse. Here's to hoping that they're right, and life goes on, and the city that works keeps on working.
posted by cusack at 12:48 PM on October 2

would any of us have been that thrilled if George W. had been the first President to lobby in person and - being successful - thus enriched his hometown cronies?

Well, since the IOC never thought that holding the Olympics in New Haven, CT might have been a good idea I guess we'll never know.
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 12:50 PM on October 2 [4 favorites]

There's that pesky equator, getting in the way of understanding the seasonal changes on the planet again.

I only mentioned the seasons to point out an advantage in having the Summer Olympics in Rio that I hadn't seen talked about much in (American) news reports. As I said, though, what surprised me was how much cooler Rio is than I expected. Even their Summer (February) highs are much lower than I thought they'd be. Mea culpa if everyone was already aware of this, though.
posted by empyrean at 12:52 PM on October 2

Getting the Olympics in 1996 didn't do Atlanta any favors.

We did get a park in downtown with some free concerts (On The Bricks, IIRC) out of it. As a teenager, that made the Olympics more than worth it to me.
posted by jmd82 at 12:52 PM on October 2

> Yeah, but Stonewall Jackson, you neglected to include the immediately subsequent paragraph:

The one that ends with "...they are a losing proposition to a city; they become “white elephants.” Where does one look to find exceptions — Montreal, Seoul, Barcelona, Sydney, Athens? I think not!"?

I think you meant the paragraph after that one, the one that begins with "That said however, there are areas of Olympic-related endeavors that do return long-term benefits to residents of host cities..."
posted by Stonewall Jackson at 12:53 PM on October 2

I'm apparently the only person disappointed that Chicago didn't get the Olympics. Oh well, I can deal, go go Rio.
posted by The Devil Tesla at 12:54 PM on October 2

If Obama were to sneeze at this moment, there are conservatives that would claim his nose was trying to shame him for his hubris.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:54 PM on October 2 [8 favorites]

Heck, all I can think of now is a bunch of Brazilian women doing the macarena at a conference (back when the macarena was the in thing). Now I know my wife won't let me go to Rio for the Olympics!

Ah, the memories.

Good luck, Brazil
posted by Man with Lantern at 12:57 PM on October 2

Felicitações!
posted by sharkitect at 1:00 PM on October 2 [2 favorites]

Just sayin' we have lots of folks sitting around doing nothing and struggling to make ends meet who could have been employed had Chicago won the bid. Headaches of living/working in a host city notwithstanding, I think the "yay! we lost!" mentality is a little glib in these economic times.

If we are going to do something like that, why not spend the massive amounts of taxpayer money employing people to do something that could result in real long-term benefit for the city, like building a new CTA line or creating an actual, real recycling program like every other self-respecting city in America has?
posted by Jess the Mess at 1:00 PM on October 2 [9 favorites]

We did get a park in downtown with some free concerts (On The Bricks, IIRC) out of it. As a teenager, that made the Olympics more than worth it to me.

We got Centennial Park and dorms for Georgia State. Score two. We lost a tremendous amount of money, had housing costs rise significantly (and not come down until this year, 13 years later) without the promised income from rentals, lost productivity in Atlanta and Athens, didn't see any noticeable improvement in employment, and to top it off, lost face in the international community with bombings (though to be fair, that was domestic terrorism and not an Olympics-direct cost). Score negative, what, seventy?
posted by notashroom at 1:03 PM on October 2 [3 favorites]

Ok, so I just got back from reading some of the comments in the foxnews forum about this thing and I am honestly sick to my stomach reading some of those comments.
posted by scrutiny at 1:04 PM on October 2

Doublewhiskeycokenoice: "since the IOC never thought that holding the Olympics in New Haven, CT might have been a good idea I guess we'll never know."

While born in New Haven, W. was raised in Midland and Houston, Texas*. And more significant to this discussion: His political career was founded in Texas.

So your comment - whatever it means - would only make sense if Obama had been lobbying for Honolulu.
posted by Joe Beese at 1:06 PM on October 2 [1 favorite]

I had always thought that the main reason these cities try so hard to host the games was financial, but a commentator on the BBC world service today said that the only host city to ever actually turn an audited profit was LA in 1984.
posted by Rhomboid at 1:09 PM on October 2

Rhomboid: "the only host city to ever actually turn an audited profit was LA in 1984."

This helped.

The federal government donated $75 million to pay for the Games, and the city's Olympic Committee earned an additional $53 million from the sale of Olympic commemorative coins by the U.S. Mint.
posted by Joe Beese at 1:16 PM on October 2

Good thing we'll all have jetpacks and flying cars by then.
posted by Burhanistan at 1:17 PM on October 2

and the 84 Olympics were a fun time here. Too bad for Chicago, Good deal for Rio. There's a reason cities compete to host the games. It's a party, an expensive party, but a party nonetheless. You know who didn't like to party...
posted by Edward L at 1:19 PM on October 2

I'm confused by this. Is it because Obama was from Chicago and Obama championed having the games there and they hate Obama and therefore they hate us having the Olympics?

My conservative bosses have been howling over the Drudge Report's headline all afternoon. Somehow, Oprah's involved as well, like it was some big black Chicagoan conspiracy that wouldn't have, you know, provided any financial stimulus to the Midwest, because it's doing really well financially now and everything.

Suck it, brown people! You can take our presidency, but you can't take our Olympics... oh, wait, they're in Rio.
posted by oinopaponton at 1:21 PM on October 2

Do you reckon they'll be doing some reforestation of the rainforest?
posted by Enki at 1:24 PM on October 2

Suck it, brown people! You can take our presidency, but you can't take our Olympics... oh, wait, they're in Rio.

Huh? Have you ever been to Brazil? There are white people everywhere.
posted by Burhanistan at 1:25 PM on October 2

FWIW:

I wanted to give you some inside perspective on the Olympic planning as I had the privilege to work and help with some of the architecture and planning proposal for Chicago's Bid. ...

... we do not have the best international reputation at this time, and it well known that it is a frustrating and difficult process compared to the other host countries for travelers to gain admittance into the US. There was not a lot that could be done with our planning about this, but it was still brought up as an unofficial "official" concern of the IOC. I think Obama's visit was prob in some effort to help remove this concern from the selection committee. ...

... regardless of Obama's influence (or lack of), at best, all he would have been able to do was help push over the top, or slightly hurt, but not much more. The decision was most likely already made that Chicago would not host it a few weeks ago by the IOC.

So, yeah, it's Bush's fault.
posted by Joe Beese at 1:25 PM on October 2

There is a point that some anti-Chicago Olympic people miss when they point out the money-losing aspect. The point below won't absolutely even up the books, but it does make the loss considerably smaller when considering the big picture of economies larger than just Chicago itself.

-
If Chicago were to win, the money for the TV rights, which if I remember correctly, amount to several billion dollars, and the additional millions it would cost to shoot, operate, and televise the events, would have stayed in the United States. Also consider the money that media companies from many other nations would also be paying for their own production costs, such as equipment rentals, accommodations, and hired local crew. Now that the event is elsewhere, all that cash will be funneled into another city.
-

I wonder how many of those people who were ardently against it are happy that all that money will still be spent, just far away from the economy they are trying so hard to "protect." I'm not arguing for protectionism, their strategy seems short sighted.

Would you rather have a meal that gives you a bit of indigestion, or no meal at all?

If anything, this is a Pyrrhic victory for them, although they may never realize it.
posted by chambers at 1:27 PM on October 2 [1 favorite]

For a blast form the past, previous Olympic announcement threads:

London 2012
Vancouver 2010
Beijing 2008

(Apparently no one cared about the Sochi 2014 games.)
posted by smackfu at 1:28 PM on October 2 [2 favorites]

As someone who is living with the looming 2010 winter Olympics around here, let me say that, yes Chicago, you missed a chance to hire thousands of people to build a fleeting infrastructure that is largely unsustainable (except maybe for our new subway in Vancouver), but needs to be supported by taxation for years afterwards.

A friend of mine who has worked in communications and PR for the 2010 games since Vancouver/Whistler won the bid, is cynical now, even though he was a big bosster in the beginning. He told me a few months ago "make no mistake- the Olympics is about making marginal pieces of land valuable." He's tired of selling it all.

Here in Vancouver, the talk lately has been about locking up homeless people during the protect them from inclement weather. In Vancouver. Where it rarely drops below freezing in February. And the legislation is being prepared in time for the Games.

Chicago, you may have had a few more jobs in the short term, but the Olympic movement is very very hard on poor people generally, and very very good for the rich.
posted by salishsea at 1:31 PM on October 2 [7 favorites]

Here's some fun times at the 1904 St. Louis Olympics, that were originally supposed to be in Chicago.

Geez, you have one madman killing a bunch of people in a hotel designed to kill people at the 1893 World's Fair, and nobody wants to play with you anymore.
posted by chambers at 1:36 PM on October 2 [3 favorites]

For arguing about the economics, this broadcast from yesterday was a nice look at an academic view.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 1:46 PM on October 2

You know who didn't like to party...

You know who else hosted the Olympics?
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:47 PM on October 2 [2 favorites]

Anybody know if Mark Sanford has started to make reservations 'in support of team USA'?
posted by JoeXIII007 at 1:54 PM on October 2

Atlanta's Olympics created many new dormitories for Georgia Tech, bulldozed the slummy housing projects that made the midtown area dangerous, and Atlanta itself broke even. I hear the IOC was royally pissed when locals stole all the money IOC officials usually steal though.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:56 PM on October 2 [1 favorite]

I had always thought that the main reason these cities try so hard to host the games was financial, but a commentator on the BBC world service today said that the only host city to ever actually turn an audited profit was LA in 1984.

Atlanta turned a profit of around $10 million, apparently, though they were using LA's model and got a lot of their money from sponsorship. They then turned the Olympic Village apartments into State School dorms and the track-and-field stadium into Turner Field. It's funny, whoever said that the Olympics did Atlanta no favors picked one of the only instances of the Olympics having a clear and notable positive impact on the host city.

Montreal, by comparison, has an Olympic Village that's just sort of depressing and abandoned, and spent 30 years paying off the debts from having hosted the games.

So, you know, here's hoping it does some god for Rio. I know when I was living in NY four years ago we sure as hell didn't want it.
posted by Navelgazer at 1:59 PM on October 2

> Yeah, but Stonewall Jackson, you neglected to include the immediately subsequent paragraph:

The one that ends with "...they are a losing proposition to a city; they become “white elephants.” Where does one look to find exceptions — Montreal, Seoul, Barcelona, Sydney, Athens? I think not!"?

No, the immediately subsequent paragraph (i.e., the one that I quoted), which states that Chicago's plan was to recycle the facilities built for the Olympics, thereby avoiding the white elephant problem.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 2:00 PM on October 2

Who cares anymore about the Olympics?
posted by A189Nut at 2:06 PM on October 2

Free Brazilians [NSFW] for all the athletes! Phwooooooaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrr!
posted by Halloween Jack at 2:06 PM on October 2

chambers: "I wonder how many of those people who were ardently against it are happy that all that money will still be spent, just far away from the economy they are trying so hard to "protect.""

While I see your point, that's private-sector money you're talking about. What really enraged a lot of people about the Chicago bid was that a lot of people were potentially going to get taxed to foot the bill for something they didn't see as a benefit and potentially even regarded as a giant imposition that they wanted no part of.

The money that goes from the US to Brazil as a result of them having the Olympics there will be, at least in the most part, the result of TV networks and other commercial entities who are responding to market pressure (people wanting to watch the Olympics at home). Nobody is forcing the networks to send crews there to televise the thing; they're doing it because (granted this was decided in advance when NBC got their massive multiyear contract) they think it's good business and presumably because they get more in advertising revenue than it costs to cover.

Nobody is going to force Mr or Mrs America to pay for any of it now, and that was the thing that really ground some people's gears. (At least based on the few people either from or with family in the Chicagoland area that I talked to in the past few weeks.) The economic benefits weren't clear or distinct enough to make it worth the risk of being left holding the bag. Honestly, I don't think that the pro-Olympic people really did a good job selling it.

Of course, whether the local opposition to having the Olympics in Chicago actually figured into the IOC's decision, I've no idea. My guess is that the decision was probably far more political (read: corrupt) than that, and that if the IOC had been sold on Chicago it wouldn't have mattered two squirts what public sentiment on the ground was. So exactly why some people were opposed and some were in favor may not really be worth worrying about.
posted by Kadin2048 at 2:18 PM on October 2

There Olympics have never been hosted by a South American city? Rilly?! I'm genuinely surprised. Good for you, Brazil.
posted by Neofelis at 2:21 PM on October 2

Bush Administration’s Tourist Visa Policy May Have Cost America The 2016 Olympics.
posted by ericb at 2:21 PM on October 2 [3 favorites]

Mission Accomplished For Conservatives Who Rooted Against America (w/ video).
posted by ericb at 2:22 PM on October 2 [1 favorite]

Anybody know if Mark Sanford has started to make reservations 'in support of team USA'?

You know that Buenos Aires is more than 1200 miles away from Rio, right?
posted by Slap Factory at 2:30 PM on October 2

Speaking of visa policy, unless things change until then, Americans need a visa to go to Brazil - Brazilian visa policy is mostly (maybe all) reciprocal - if a country requires a visa from Brazilians, Brazil requires a visa for that country's citizens.
posted by qvantamon at 2:31 PM on October 2

Or, what ericb's link says (yay for answering before clicking)
posted by qvantamon at 2:35 PM on October 2

My conservative nutbar coworker thought Chicago was in for sure "because of ACORN".

FYI
posted by DU at 2:36 PM on October 2

Kadin2048 - response to my earlier post

I agree with you that the pro-Olympics people were oddly vague with their pitch, which did nothing to help their cause, and that deal to have the city back the budget was unwise and rubbed alot of people the wrong way. A lot of people here felt like they were being dragged into something they didn't have all the facts about.

This was the worst time for Chicago to be up for the bid. Had the economy been better, we would have had much more private sector support, and there would have been much more possibilities available. It's just a shame it didn't work out.

Personally, I was kinda hoping for the bid, even though traffic would suck for weeks, I would have just subleted my apartment to some rich visitors for a month, and crashed with friends, and made a good bit of profit. A friend of mine did that in Atlanta in '96, and made enough for a quality 3 week vacation in Europe.
posted by chambers at 2:38 PM on October 2

Bush Administration’s Tourist Visa Policy May Have Cost America The 2016 Olympics.

Thanks -- I was just about to post something similar, but your link is better.
posted by gimonca at 3:13 PM on October 2

I wish I could convey just how important this is for Brazil. The country has had a self-image problem, and it frequently views itself through the filter of the United States, which only serves to further weaken its national esteem. Even though the long term economic benefits may not be there, and I am not sure that it will be as detrimental as some in this thread have been saying. You've been comparing apples to oranges - post industrial economies I suspect will react differently than developing economies with respect to enormous international sporting events (I am no economist, but my husband is, and has said as much). There is much to be proud of and optimistic for today in Brazil.
posted by msali at 3:13 PM on October 2 [1 favorite]

Ironically (or maybe just weirdly) there's a piece in this week's New Yorker about gang culture in Rio that doesn't exactly make you want to stop by. BUT HEY! Who cares about drugs? OLYMPICS!
posted by grapefruitmoon at 3:26 PM on October 2

You know who else hosted the Olympics?

Zeus?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:32 PM on October 2 [2 favorites]

I live on the South Side of Chicago a few blocks from Washington Park, which would have been the site of the stadium. Every morning I drive past it on my way to work, and for the past month or so there's been a giant dumpster next to the road, painted orange and white, with the words "We Back the Olympic Bid." I found the symbolism of this oddly fitting.

The neighborhoods around the park are some of Chicago's poorest. I hope that instead of spending untold millions on the short term whiz-bang of an Olympics that would only bring gentrification and useless buildings to the area, we spend some energy and money making those neighborhoods better and improving life for their residents.

Already they spent $50 million on the Olympic bid. It disgusts me to think how much the lives of my students could have been improved by that money if Daly really cared about his city's citizens and not just his own image. Maybe now someone will be in a position to defeat him.
posted by mai at 3:35 PM on October 2 [3 favorites]

Grapefruitmoon, I read that article, and thought it was funny that it was written by Jon Anderson, who generally reports from war zones. Then I realized that most people probably see Rio as a war zone, and maybe that isn't wrong. But it certainly isn't entirely right. I welcome the chance for foreigners to travel throughout Rio and realize that you don't have to dodge bullets wherever you go.
posted by msali at 3:35 PM on October 2

I wish I could convey just how important this is for Brazil. The country has had a self-image problem

The 2014 World Cup, for better or worse, will affect Brazil's self-image—and image throughout the world—at least as much, and two years earlier.
posted by stargell at 3:42 PM on October 2 [1 favorite]

This thread has rapidly turned from a "Rio won!" thread to a "Chicago lost!" thread. Which is cool and all, but don't get a big head thinking Chicago was the only city to be honored by losing. Where are my Spanish and Japanese peeps?!

I'll go ahead and start with "Tokyo didn't win!! Yay!!"
posted by Bugbread at 3:49 PM on October 2 [1 favorite]

Conservatives revel in US loss.

Can you imagine what the same people would have said if liberals cheered Houston losing to Rio when Bush was prez?
posted by CunningLinguist at 3:56 PM on October 2

stargell: "The 2014 World Cup, for better or worse, will affect Brazil's self-image—and image throughout the world—at least as much, and two years earlier."

oww... my American exceptionalism!
posted by Joe Beese at 4:49 PM on October 2

I woke up to this as kind of a shock. Up until this week, I'd kind of assumed that it was a toss-up between Tokyo and Chicago. Part of this must be attributed to living 45 minutes from Tokyo while pretty much my whole family/network of friends back home lives in and around Chicago.

Then this week, I saw that, according to the betting parlors, Tokyo was dead last, but Chicago was still first. Then, checking the news this morning being rather shocked about it. Then again, with the various reports about the rifts between the IOC and the USOC, feeling very meh about it.

The thing about Obama was that he was in a position where he couldn't win. If he didn't go, he didn't think America was important enough. Even one of the comments from an IOC voter said that Obama spending only five hours there was "too businesslike," sort of missed the point, that Obama was taking time away from running a country in order to appease a group of people that were prepared to ignore anything he said, simply because of where he was from.

Since Chicago lost, Obama failed, and has lost face. Had Chicago won, he'd be the reason for an expensive boondoggle that would only benefit his cronies in Chicago.
posted by Ghidorah at 5:38 PM on October 2 [1 favorite]

Rio is exactly the sort of city that should be given the Olympics.
posted by The Whelk at 5:48 PM on October 2

I heard the IOC might, just might, add BJJ to the roster of games. If so? I am going to Brazil, yo!
posted by tkchrist at 6:06 PM on October 2

You know that Buenos Aires is more than 1200 miles away from Rio, right?

Same continent though: his lover could, if she has access to one, take a ~3-4 day bus trip, or do it over 2-3 days with drivers alternating. It would be similar to a cross country trip from Detroit to Los Angeles on ground, or about 1/3 of a trip from Detroit to Atlanta (which I have done once).

Thus they meet up for a date at the Olympics... or he goes for the olympics and takes one heck of a detour back home. ;)

Yes... I realize here I contradict my position about gossiping about Palin... Sanford got away easy though...
posted by JoeXIII007 at 6:37 PM on October 2

congrats to Brazil here, amazing how catch 22ý it all was for President Obama...
even on issues of next to no importance, the New Right seems to not want to SAY anything meaningful, and rather to say "neener neener sumthing sumthing."

are they even TRYING over at fox anymore? (this season has SUCKED... none of the plots go anywhere...)
posted by infinite intimation at 7:18 PM on October 2

I went to sleep last night sure Chicago would win. Maybe it was all the Obama and Oprah media-attention in the last few days. I was also listening to an ESPN PTI podcast stating that Michael Jordan wasn't going and they were rebuking him and saying that he should go because Pele went.

Anyways, I thought for sure the US would win. Much to my surprise, and my fellow countrymen's surprise, we got it! (Globo TV's live reaction)
posted by dealing away at 7:44 PM on October 2

Kudos South America. I've had enough of US/Canada/EU/Japan/Korea/Australia constantly getting the games. It's an awfully myopic vision for something that's supposed to be a global celebration of human spirit and goodwill. No games have ever taken place in Africa, India or the Middle East. Those are the cradles of civilization and they need some respect.
posted by crapmatic at 7:59 PM on October 2 [1 favorite]

I thought it would come down to Chicago and Rio, with Rio winning. I'm American, but I was rooting for Madrid. Their losing the 2012 Games to London fairly closely was sad, and I thought they had a stronger bid this time around. Man, I love madrileños, and Spain is a beautiful place that is close to my heart.

I was delighted to see Madrid was one of the two finalists, thinking maybe there was a chance they could topple Rio. But Rio's bid was just the perfect place, time, and message, and since 2012 is already in Europe, the IOC would be unlikely to repeat continents.

They are saying maybe they might shoot for 2020, but I kind of doubt it.
posted by cmgonzalez at 8:00 PM on October 2

Why do conservatives hate America?
posted by grouse at 8:59 PM on October 2 [1 favorite]

I welcome the chance for foreigners to travel throughout Rio and realize that you don't have to dodge bullets wherever you go.

Now there's an event that would pump up the TV ratings!
posted by rokusan at 9:17 PM on October 2

"Seeking to be the first Green Olympics, Brazil wins ..." this point was apparently not worth discussing here; what were the other host cities offering for carbon offsets?
posted by SeeAych4 at 10:21 PM on October 2

There shall be much buttfucking.
posted by bardic at 10:45 PM on October 2

There shall be much buttfucking.

promises promises
posted by The Whelk at 10:57 PM on October 2 [1 favorite]

In Sydney the lead up to 2000 was pretty positive. There was some carping that it would be costly, and trepidation at the transport issues, but ultimately, pretty much the whole city was behind it. It surprises me that the Chicago bid is getting so much criticism here.
I suspect part of it is a national pride issue. For Brazil, and Sydney, it was a case of validation that the IOC recognised the hosts could do a good job, for the USA after LA and Atlanta in recent memory there isn't the same national pride element.
Good luck Rio. We had a blast in Sydney, and we still enjoy the infrastructure left behind - tomorrow there will be 80,000 people watching our local football grand final in the old Olympic stadium, twice as many as would have seen it without the Olympic games coming here.
Not to mention the 1st class grounds we got for sports that had previously been neglected, like rowing, baseball (I know! hard to believe in the US) kayaking etc.
If it is well managed, the Rio games will be a huge boost for Rio.
posted by bystander at 5:08 AM on October 3

RFB! RFB! [goes on drunken orgy]
posted by jewzilla at 8:47 AM on October 3

Let's hope that Obama doesn't pull a Jimmy Carter and boycott the Olympics.
posted by Frank Grimes at 9:24 AM on October 3

I'd love to think this opens the door for Brazilian Jiu Jitsu to be introduced as at least an exhibition sport. Then again, that may ruin it like many say it did judo.
posted by LordSludge at 11:49 AM on October 3

Usually the simplest answer, the one about money, is the right one:

The discussion with the I.O.C. promises to be heated. The 204 other national Olympic committees receive the same percentage of money from top-level sponsors as the U.S.O.C. does, but they share it. Some I.O.C. members, national Olympic committees and international sports federations have complained about that imbalance, saying the U.S.O.C. receives much more than its fair share. One I.O.C. member called the United States’ slice of the revenue immoral.

The debate comes at a delicate time for the U.S.O.C., with Chicago trying to land the Games by impressing the I.O.C. The vote on the 2016 Summer Games is set for this fall. An I.O.C. evaluation commission will visit Chicago in early April to check the city’s bid.

How did those Denver talks turn out? Not so good, apparently.
posted by notyou at 12:26 PM on October 3

Q: What's the difference between Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and Barack Obama's America?

A: Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia hosted the Olympics.
posted by Frank Grimes at 2:49 PM on October 4 [1 favorite]

Could the Olympics Mean More Misery for Rio's Poor?
posted by homunculus at 12:28 PM on October 6