English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

please consider the expenses in which the city will be contributing to the event.

2007-03-05 15:00:52 · 5 answers · asked by niu*chic 1 in Sports Olympics

5 answers

I think Chicago should get the bid for two reasons:

(1) Los Angeles have hosted the Olympics twice already, in 1932 and recently in 1984.

(2) The 1904 Olympic Games was originally scheduled for Chicago but relocated to St Louis by President Roosevelt at the time.

Find more discussion, information, articles, tips, drills, etc on Olympic sports and more at http://www.active.com and http://active.typepad.com/teamsports

2007-03-06 14:20:30 · answer #1 · answered by Active.com 4 · 0 0

Chicago is 1 of 2 Us Cities biding for the right to be the US bid city
The other is L.A. Chicago will benefit in the long run as all the faculties can be used again. Olympic village -housing, They will not have to build everything in Chicago they will use some of the existing facilities. The Olympics brings in millions in dollars from tourism alone. Athens lost money. Sydney made money All the event sights are being used today. Homebush stadium- rugby,Aussie football games are played there, you can swim in the Olympic poll for a few dollars. Chicago can get NCAA and others to come because of the world class facilities.

2007-03-06 03:07:05 · answer #2 · answered by uoptiger_79 4 · 0 0

I would love to see Chicago showcased in such an international event. It's funny how some who have pride in our city would not want an Olympic games here. It's a big time event, and it's high time Chicago struts its stuff on the big stage. Why do we care if not many of the people attending are area residents: it's a world event and we should be as accommodating to them, if not more so, to encourage them and others to come back long after it's over. As for us, we know where the better seats are anyway: in front of our TVs. I believe, after the recent spate of gross overspending and broken promises, that Chicago and other bidding cities are making a concerted effort to ensure that the negative impacts are minimized. The temporary aspect of the some of the venues is intentional, so that we don't end up w/ large stadia w/ nothing to do. And the housing created by the Olympic Village is intended for reuse, to help the neighborhoods. Granted, some will be displaced, but there's always some price attached to progress, unless you're content to let the world pass you by. If you're so concerned about expenses, you never get to see the opportunity that is in front of you. To me, that's lack of vision. We should be concerned about putting the burden of costs on the backs of taxpayers, but I believe Chicago has done a good job so far making sure that's not happening. Bring on the Olympics!

2016-03-16 05:22:37 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

with the key exception of Athens being a disaster,

almost all Olympic cities gain from greater long-term cashflows than expenses even when discounted back to the beginning of the expenses.

2007-03-05 15:07:24 · answer #4 · answered by brianatm6 2 · 0 0

CHICAGO CHICAGO CHICAGO CHICAGO CHICAGO CHICAGO WE RULE 0O0 YEA WE DO
CHICAGO CHICAGO CHICAGO CHICAGO
just cus

2007-03-05 15:10:20 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers