StructureHub

President Barack Obama suffered an embarrassing defeat Friday at the hands of a secretive and quirky international body known for its unpredictability…

As a rule, StructureHub shies away from political topics (due to a convenient matter of “subject matter incompatibility”).  Of course, this rule is usually irrelevant if one overlooks occasional posts that obliquely refer to “public officials” in the planning process, among other vaguely-defined classes of individuals.  However, the Olympics are as much a matter of urban planning as political intrigue and in this case, Politico’s (above) characterization merits a response.  Friday’s election of Rio de Janeiro as the host of the 2016 Olympic Games was only unexpected (and thus more easily dismissed as the machinations of a “secretive and quirky” organization) if one ignored the many well-documented factors pointing toward Rio’s selection.

To begin with, Chicago was not predestined to host the 2016 Olympic Games - and its fate didn’t shift after it gained a resident President.  Why?  Quite simply, the competition was better (note: the Friday’s election was not necessary to figure this out):  (1) Madrid and Tokyo boasted superior transportation networks; (2) Madrid and Rio boasted a substantial portion of Olympic venues already built and only in need of renovation (thereby lowering the games’ overall price tag, lessening the logistical challenge of completing all venues in time, and minimizing the risk of being bogged down by local political opposition during construction); (3) Madrid was the only major European capital yet to have hosted the games; (4) Rio was the most cosmopolitan metropolis on a continent that had never hosted the games.

As for Chicago’s bid, it was hampered by (1) middling IOC assessments regarding its technical capabilities and unrealistically low cost estimates; (2) local political opposition to ensuring compliance with the IOC’s requirement that the host government guarantee against potential liabilities; (3) the U.S. Olympic Committee’s refusal to adjust an agreement splitting broadcast revenues between it and the IOC (one influential IOC member called the current division “immoral”); and undoubtedly (4) the United States’ decided lack of popularity overseas.  Oh yes, the United States has also host the Olympics 9 times (the most of any country); Brazil?  The tenth-largest world economy?  Zero times.

Chicago’s “stunning” defeat was only shocking to Americans Chicagoans & White House officials who assumed star power could overcome the above obstacles to victory - most obviously, the incredible appeal of awarding the games for the first time to an entire continent (and not for lack of trying; Rio also made bids for 1936, 1940, 2004, and 2012).

Moreover, President Obama’s pilgrimage to Copenhagen may well have been a tonic for the United States’ recent unpopularity, but the visit was incapable of dislodging the Chicago bid’s concrete shortcomings or excusing another rejection of South America.  In fact, if President Obama stayed home, I’m sure Chicago’s loss would’ve been even more lopsided.

Regardless of why the IOC rejected Chicago in favor of Rio, both cities are better off as a result.

Chicagoans will avoid years of construction and political wrangling about how to house and transport thousands of athletic entourages.  Similarly, while the Olympics would’ve supplied a convenient excuse to improve its transportation network of buses, subway cars, and commuter trains, such improvements can now be designed without having to accommodate the needs of a tw0-week event.

Neither did Chicago’s renaissance as an urban and cultural center rely on hosting the Olympics; it’s been in the midst of one for several years (e.g., Millenium Park, U.S. Cellular Field, the expanded Art Institute of Chicago, the renovated Soldier Field, etc.).  At least Chicago had the good sense to consider building temporary venues to avoid an Athens-like post-Olympics hangover - but even that cost-savings measure wouldn’t guarantee that the games would break even, let alone reach profitability.

Rio de Janeiro on the other hand, will benefit from the support of a nation united by passion and pride, eager to make the best of Brazil’s grand entry onto the world stage (it was already there, numbers-wise, if not by perception).  Unlike Chicago, it’s also fair to say that Rio could really use the Olympics.  Besides its beaches, carnival, and statue of Christ, Rio is arguably most known for pockets of pervasive poverty and crime.  There are few things besides the Olympics that have the power to force/help officials to address the seeming intractability of these afflictions.

The only thing I’m nervous about is a repeat of Mexico City (1968) or Beijing (2008).  The former was marred by social unrest prior to the Opening Ceremony that culminated in 300 protesters getting killed by police and armed forces; the latter’s success was only made possible by the displacement of thousands of poor residents who had the ironic misfortune of living on land where Olympic ideals were to be embodied by wide boulevards, green plazas, and massive arenas.  Although poor people are susceptible to abuse by public officials because of a common unawareness of their legal rights, regardless of their country of residence, I am somewhat comforted by the fact that Brazil’s government is not a South American version of China’s.

Wikipedia has an incredibly comprehensive review of Rio’s bid that’s worth exploring.

Image courtesy of pntphoto