WI: 2016 Olympics awarded to Chicago, with Rio losing by 2 votes.

fashbasher

Banned
Here are the competing bids. What impact does this have on:

The popular perception, crime rate, and quality of life of Chicago? The budget of Illinois? Pat Quinn's reelection campaign?

The popular perception and economy of Brazil?

Bidding for the 2020 Olympics?
 
The games were mostly privately financed and using existing venues, the main expense was for a stadium for opening, closing ceremonies and track and field events.
It was designed for 25,000 permanent seats with temporary seating for 80,000.

The majority of the costs would have been for security for the games and like for every Olympics in the United States since Los Angeles, the Federal government will pay for it.
 
Corruption, corruption as far as the eye can see. It'd be beautiful. This in no way being influenced by my having a number of friends from Chicago, several of whom work in the construction industry. ;)

More seriously Obama would get most of the credit where in our timeline he was seen as a flop. If they built the Olympic Village south of McCormick Place on the truck park as originally planned - or the old Michael Reese site if they managed to get everything lined up right, which has the benefit of not seeing it sit there deserted for years - then that could help keep the momentum for the proposed Lake Meadows development just south-west or south respectively of it going. You'd also see several of the parks being degraded somewhat by their being built on part of them but that can't really be avoided. Whether they'd be able to get away without needing to use public funds or if costs would mysteriously grow is a fifty-fifty proposition I'd say.

It would be interesting to see what if any effects this might give to expanding or improving the L. A number of the proposed venues like Soldier Field, McCormack Place, and the Village don't have all that great public transport links, they might be able to get away with running extra services on the Metra Electric District for the duration or it could be the impetus to take a serious look at the proposal to convert the Metra Electric District South Chicago branch to an L line that's been floating around for a while. It would likely see the new station at Damen and Lake on the Green Line that they're currently planning to start building towards the end of this year being brought forward to serve the United Center. You might even get a second one on the Paulina Connector on the Pink Line at Madison, although that would probably be contingent on the Circle Line going forward at some point. Would hope that the CTA's bus services also got a look in as well.
 
Weren't some of the venues for the games planned to be scattered around the state? I seem to remember hearing about that proposal. That might lead to negative coverage about how Chicago was unable to support its games within its city limits.
 
Weren't some of the venues for the games planned to be scattered around the state? I seem to remember hearing about that proposal.
Checking the Genocide it seems they were talking about possibly using facilities in some of the immediately neighbouring towns and cities in Cook County, plus outsourcing the cycling to Madison in Wisconsin - which is rather odd but there you go. The only other mentions I can see from a quick skim was to play some of the preliminary football games in stadiums in other states before bringing the final games back to Chicago. If that's the extent I don't think it would do much damage reputation-wise and could be attempted to be played off as spreading the entertainment around.
 

fashbasher

Banned
Checking the Genocide it seems they were talking about possibly using facilities in some of the immediately neighbouring towns and cities in Cook County, plus outsourcing the cycling to Madison in Wisconsin - which is rather odd but there you go. The only other mentions I can see from a quick skim was to play some of the preliminary football games in stadiums in other states before bringing the final games back to Chicago. If that's the extent I don't think it would do much damage reputation-wise and could be attempted to be played off as spreading the entertainment around.

Genocide?
 

fashbasher

Banned
Corruption, corruption as far as the eye can see. It'd be beautiful. This in no way being influenced by my having a number of friends from Chicago, several of whom work in the construction industry. ;)

More seriously Obama would get most of the credit where in our timeline he was seen as a flop. If they built the Olympic Village south of McCormick Place on the truck park as originally planned - or the old Michael Reese site if they managed to get everything lined up right, which has the benefit of not seeing it sit there deserted for years - then that could help keep the momentum for the proposed Lake Meadows development just south-west or south respectively of it going. You'd also see several of the parks being degraded somewhat by their being built on part of them but that can't really be avoided. Whether they'd be able to get away without needing to use public funds or if costs would mysteriously grow is a fifty-fifty proposition I'd say.

It would be interesting to see what if any effects this might give to expanding or improving the L. A number of the proposed venues like Soldier Field, McCormack Place, and the Village don't have all that great public transport links, they might be able to get away with running extra services on the Metra Electric District for the duration or it could be the impetus to take a serious look at the proposal to convert the Metra Electric District South Chicago branch to an L line that's been floating around for a while. It would likely see the new station at Damen and Lake on the Green Line that they're currently planning to start building towards the end of this year being brought forward to serve the United Center. You might even get a second one on the Paulina Connector on the Pink Line at Madison, although that would probably be contingent on the Circle Line going forward at some point. Would hope that the CTA's bus services also got a look in as well.

Does Illinois go full bankrupt? That's the big question.
 
I would have thought that either Soldier Field or Ryan Field (Northwestern) could have been used for track and field (after researching doesn't look like either can). Now all of that being said, there are facilities for some sports already in existence (could you imagine baseball at Wrigley and Cummiskey) soccer at Ryan and Soldier, for shooting events I was looking at Camp Perry, Ohio...however Great Lakes Naval Station is close by and should be able to support most if not all of the shooting events...

Now as a native New Orleanian, I must say that the opportunities for corruption are endless (although if you tried to do this in NOLA, the corruption would be a LOT more fun), but there are opportunities for some lasting improvements in public works. There could even be a couple of more improvements to the railroad network in the area like getting rid of a few more grade crossings...
 
Wouldn't Brazil's economy still take a hit in ATL, if less severe? They would still host the 2014 FIFA World Cup.
 
As I remembered from the plans for the Chicago games, Soldier Field, Camp Randall Stadium in Madison, WI, Memorial Stadium in Champaign, IL were to be used for soccer.
Track and Field were to be held at a new stadium that was going to have 80,000 seats for the games and 25,000 after the games.
Grant Park was going to be used for events like archery, BMX racing, tennis using temporay stands.
The Olympic Village had several options like new student housing at UI-C or using existing student housing at the various universities around Chicago.
 
Mass corruption and international outcry when that famous Chicago gun violence ends up getting some poor Olympian or tourists killed.

Jokes aside, it would have been a boondoggle, the Olympics always are, but less of a clusterfuck than Rio was. President Obama gets a nice victory lap in his hometown in his last year in office.
 
In reality the violence in Chicago is basically among gang members in a relatively small area.
The main driver in the increase of the costs to hold the Olympics was the unexpected financial success of the Olympics in Los Angeles which fooled other cities and countries into thinking that they can make a profit on the games.
What they forgot was that there was only two new venues built, the swimming pool at USC, and the velodrome at CSU Dominguez Hills which were completely paid for by private donors.
In order to be selected to host the games, cities started to promise to build newer facilities to impress the IOC and after reports of new venues in Sydney, Athens, and Beijing being unused and abandoned after the games, cities started to back away from hosting the games which is why the IOC had to award the 2024 games to Paris and the 2028 games to Los Angeles at the same time.
 
To build off ejpsan's last comment, Chicago winning the bid would probably be a bad thing for the cost of the games in the short term. Rio's experience seems to have been a key piece in the pattern that's leading to reform. Whereas spiraling costs would be less compelling in a Chicago games- just another rich city in a rich country that can afford to splurge, even if they're not happy about it. I would say where we are IOTL people are starting to deal with the reality that costs are out of control. ITTL, it might take another cycle or two for people to come around to the inevitable need to reform.

On another note, it's worth thinking about how this might affect Obama's presidency. I could be mis-remembering, but I recall the lost bid coming across as kind of a public defeat for him; in fact, I remembering it being his first public defeat worthy of occupying a news cycle. Without it, it's not unlikely that he makes it to 2010 without any chinks in his armor. Now, it's an Olympic games, not a piece of legislation, so it's possible to overstate the effect of that. But on the other hand, we've got plenty of evidence in our current situation of how powerful a tool perception can be, even on members of congress.

So there is perhaps a chance that fewer people line up in opposition to the legislative priorities of early 2010, most notably the ACA. It could be an easier passage, it could even be marginally more progressive. I think if someone wanted to include that argument in a TL it would be as valid as most suppositions that are found to be reasonably acceptable on the board.

Conversely, drawing even more attention to Chicago in 2016 probably leads to political headaches for Obama and probably the Democrats. Even if the reality of Chicago is different from current perceptions spread by certain swaths of the media, more scrutiny is more likely to magnify those perceptions than dispel them. And every dollar spent on the games- even if price-gouging doesn't happen (which omg of course it will)- will be decried as wasteful graft by the Republicans. Every incident of crime in Cook County deemed worthy of making the police blotter in the local section of the paper will become a national story for five minutes. It's not out of the question that some of our more outrageous editorialists on the right start making comparisons to Obama and Hitler and the 1936 games. And if the Democratic dynamics are the same- Sanders v Clinton- there's no reason why the left wouldn't pile on at least about the boondoggle. Protests in poorer neighborhoods about how they can't get basic services while money gets funneled into stadiums.

But in the end I can't imagine the games themselves not being pulled off. It'll be a net positive victory lap for the president. And would another two-week tempest in the 2016 election cycle REALLY be all that noticeable? Maybe Sanders does a little bit better.

Brazil, of course, saves a lot of money and goes along with its economic woes in a much more low-profile way.
 
Wouldn't Brazil's economy still take a hit in ATL, if less severe? They would still host the 2014 FIFA World Cup.
The negative impact of both the World Cup and the Olympics were negligible to the Brazilian economy overall, which ranked at #7 worldwide at the time iirc. The finances of the state of Rio de Janeiro might be a bit better, but that's it.
 
To build off ejpsan's last comment, Chicago winning the bid would probably be a bad thing for the cost of the games in the short term. Rio's experience seems to have been a key piece in the pattern that's leading to reform. Whereas spiraling costs would be less compelling in a Chicago games- just another rich city in a rich country that can afford to splurge, even if they're not happy about it. I would say where we are IOTL people are starting to deal with the reality that costs are out of control. ITTL, it might take another cycle or two for people to come around to the inevitable need to reform.

On another note, it's worth thinking about how this might affect Obama's presidency. I could be mis-remembering, but I recall the lost bid coming across as kind of a public defeat for him; in fact, I remembering it being his first public defeat worthy of occupying a news cycle. Without it, it's not unlikely that he makes it to 2010 without any chinks in his armor. Now, it's an Olympic games, not a piece of legislation, so it's possible to overstate the effect of that. But on the other hand, we've got plenty of evidence in our current situation of how powerful a tool perception can be, even on members of congress.

So there is perhaps a chance that fewer people line up in opposition to the legislative priorities of early 2010, most notably the ACA. It could be an easier passage, it could even be marginally more progressive. I think if someone wanted to include that argument in a TL it would be as valid as most suppositions that are found to be reasonably acceptable on the board.

Conversely, drawing even more attention to Chicago in 2016 probably leads to political headaches for Obama and probably the Democrats. Even if the reality of Chicago is different from current perceptions spread by certain swaths of the media, more scrutiny is more likely to magnify those perceptions than dispel them. And every dollar spent on the games- even if price-gouging doesn't happen (which omg of course it will)- will be decried as wasteful graft by the Republicans. Every incident of crime in Cook County deemed worthy of making the police blotter in the local section of the paper will become a national story for five minutes. It's not out of the question that some of our more outrageous editorialists on the right start making comparisons to Obama and Hitler and the 1936 games. And if the Democratic dynamics are the same- Sanders v Clinton- there's no reason why the left wouldn't pile on at least about the boondoggle. Protests in poorer neighborhoods about how they can't get basic services while money gets funneled into stadiums.

But in the end I can't imagine the games themselves not being pulled off. It'll be a net positive victory lap for the president. And would another two-week tempest in the 2016 election cycle REALLY be all that noticeable? Maybe Sanders does a little bit better.

Brazil, of course, saves a lot of money and goes along with its economic woes in a much more low-profile way.

Of course, then there's the issue that Rahm is Mayor of Chicago - which could be played up as a massive conflict of interest, and draw attention to his floundering job as mayor.
 
Would the games be any good though? I mean given the world cup.......... Granted it should be better than Rio 2016 i should hope.

Also it could really hit the Illinois economy.

Good news is that their would be massive public expenditure on stadiums, public transport and the road network in general around Chicago and they'll probably try to get crime under control (you best bet that people will try to take advantage of tourists coming into Chicago i.e. pick pocketing).
 
I can’t say what the effects would be in Chicago, but on the Brazilian side of things some changes that could happen would be: a slightly smaller percentage of votes going to Dilma Rousseff in the 2010 election, as winning the Olympics bid in 2009 was part of the Lula government perception of success; a slightly higher percentage of votes going to Rousseff in the 2014 elections, as the 2013 protests would be a little smaller (it began as a movement against a rise in the São Paulo bus fare but quickly grew to a general discontent, with the international events being a showcase for money wasting); Rio de Janeiro state would be in better financial shape, which might dimnish the constant problems to pay public servants (although the problems in the state run deeper than the Olympics, some of it comes from low oil prices). On the other hand, the lower government spending in the state could lead to higher unemployment, lower tax revenue and the state’s finances being just as bad.

The Brazilian economy in general would still be really bad, as the cost of the Olympics was negligible in the grand scheme of things. They costed around 12 billion dollars, or 0,6% of Brazilian GDP in 2016.
 
The main driver in the increase of the costs to hold the Olympics was the unexpected financial success of the Olympics in Los Angeles which fooled other cities and countries into thinking that they can make a profit on the games.
That's not totally true. Part of the reason the '84 games were a success was BECAUSE costs had gone up so drastically in years before, in particular the '76 games had hurt Montreal badly, and the '80 Olympics had done no favors to Moscow, so LA was the only place willing to host the games, and they got away with far lower costs than other areas might have. So its more like the Los Angeles Olympics were an outlier, and people forgot that.
 
You are right but you have to remember that the games are awarded seven years before and it usually take about five years before that for an Olympic Organisation Committee (OOC) to get the bid in shape.
In 1981 Seoul was awarded the games over Nagoya, Japan with the 1986 Asian Games thrown in, the 1992 games were awarded to Barcelona over cities such as Paris, Brisbane, Birmingham, GB, and it was the 1996 games that the bids for the games started to be planned in 1984 after the success of the LA games.
One of the few criticisms of the L.A. games was how spread out they were and Sidney promised to build new venues in an "Olympic Park" so that people can walk from one venue to another venue in a short distance, and after the games were done many of the venues went unused.
After the Atlanta games were criticised for being too "Corporate" the bidding cities had to promise that most of the funds for the games came from public sources and that led to the spiraling costs of holding the games as cities had to promise to build new venues, which led to protests in cities that wanted to hold the games which led to many of them to drop out of the bidding which led to Paris being awarded the 2024 games and Los Angeles being awarded the 2028 games at the same time.
This means that the 2032 games are going to be awarded in 2025 with the OOCs starting
 
Top