I ask because it is coming…soon, and i have read almost nothing about it. I did see that the IOC was very concerned about the pollution in the Guanabara Bay (where the sailing events are to take place). Plus, Brazil is now in recession, and the government has to spend tons of money on housing, venues, etc.-which it does not have. Indications are that Brazil lost a lot of money on the last World Cup hosting, and the usual corruption will take its toll as well.
Still, Rio is a beautiful city, and the country cannot back out of it.
Is there any good information as to the state of readiness? This could be a huge disaster-if the basics are not yet in place.
I don’t think there’s been an Olympics in my lifetime that wasn’t preceeded with panicked reports about how the host-city would never be ready in time and that the whole thing was going to be a disaster.
I think the one exception was Beijing 2008. Their facilities were ready years ahead of schedule. But that’s China.
Somehow, they’ll be ready, even if the events have to take place in half-finished facilities.
I know from first-hand experience. I lived through Montreal 1976.
Hell, even Beijing had concerns. It’s always this way.
I don’t recall London 2012 having any real concerns either. Perhaps traffic was potentially an issue but other than that it was plain sailing.
Mitt Romney seemed to think otherwise, ISTR.
It’s amazing how fast you can work if you know the deadline is hard and close. There’s always a last-minute rush because there’s always a last minute.
Let’s hope they’re building things better, and nothing falls to the ground.
The Olympics is a smaller sports event than the World Cup. If they could pull of the World Cup, I expect the Olympics is no great challenge. They should be able to reuse much of the infrastructure.
Everyone was predicting disaster for the Sochi Olympics, altho in that case it was because half of the commentators were hoping for a disastrous Olympics due to anti-Russian sentiment.
I recall reading that the famous “Bird’s Nest” stadium started crumbling pretty soon after the games ended. Turns out it was built on the cheap, to make damn-sure it was ready in time.
Huh? How do you hold a sculling event in a football stadium?
In no sense related to the size, scope and cost of the event is this statement even remotely close to true.
They always seem to do this.
[ul]
[li]Sochi Olympics: infrastructure wouldn’t be ready. You can’t even take a computer out of the box before it gets hacked[/li]
[li]New York City Super Bowl: weather would be too horrible for outdoor Super Bowl[/li]
[li]Beijing Olympics: athletes would pass out due to air pollution[/li]
[li]South Africa World Cup: crime is off the charts, fans better get one of these.[/li][/ul]
All those events went along swimmingly for the most part.
I even expect Qatar’s 2022 World Cup to come and go just fine.
Actually, it is, though not by much. Cost of London Olympics: $10.4 billion. Cost of Brazil World Cup: $15 billion. Now, the attendance records for the Olympics are much higher - 7 million tickets in Atlanta versus 3 million in Brazil. But that’s because there are so many more events. There are certainly more people present to watch the World Cup.
And they were right.
The water where some events will be held is largely an open sewer, or so I have heard. They have admitted that this cannot be fixed.
Did they not teach you the meaning of the word “much”? Yes, they should be able to reuse the stadiums for things like the athletic competitions – and football. And the hotels and accommodations, the roads and transportation, the media infrastructure, the logistics, the police which have already been trained in the matter, the organisers, and just in general the thousands of people with the experience and expertise required to host a giant sports event, etc. Some things they’ll need to create from scratch, but they have a great head start.
I’m sure 2014 gives them a good head start and one can argue the numbers, but the Summer Olympics (and let’s not forget the Paralympics) are a much, much bigger deal to the host city than being part of a World Cup. Speaking as someone who was living in Chicago when they did the opening game of the World Cup in 1994, who was in Seoul about a week before they did the same in 2002 and who was living in London in 2012, I’d suggest that the pressure, scale and expectations around the Olympics are at least an order of magnitude greater, if not more.
After all, to host a World Cup, all the capital itself basically has to do is mount a few international football games and cities like that do that routinely, with lots of visiting foreign fans, often with much of the local population barely noticing. No doubt it’s a much bigger deal in regional venues and much of the expense of a World Cup is doubtless often in building new stadia there.
For the Olympics the host nation has to mount a similarly-scaled football tournament just as one tiny facet of the whole, most of which is concentrated into one city. It’s an intrinsically much more complicated affair.
But everyone in London instantly thought his comment insane. I still pity whatever aide had to elucidate the context (swearing involved) of the “Romneyshambles” coinage to him.
Free hepatitis shots for all.
In the context stated, you indicated that much of the infrastructure was already in place. I agree with you concerning the two football tournaments, but I bring up sculling because these events might not even be held in Brazil. Part of the winning bid to host the Olympics included a sewage treatment facility so triathletes wouldn’t have to be swimming through turds and stuff. Will this facility be ready in time? Has Rio even started to build it? How many of these types of events will have to be moved to the USA at the last minute?
In the context of “The Olympics is a smaller sports event than the World Cup.”, your use of the word “much” is misleading. A better choice would be “some” …