IOC Scrutinizes Cities Hoping for 2016 Games

Decision to Be Announced in October

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 3, 2009

A month before the 2016 Summer Games are awarded, the four cities in the race -- Chicago, Rio de Janeiro, Madrid and Tokyo -- each saw their flaws exposed in a comprehensive International Olympic Committee technical report released Wednesday that did not rank the cities and ultimately indicated that each could put on a successful Games.

The 90-page report from the IOC's 12-member site evaluation team did not name or indicate a front-runner. It showered each contender with a mix of compliments and criticism after providing an exhaustive technical summary of each bid.

Though the report is significant because it provides each city with concrete feedback and will serve as the primary factual reference for the 100-plus IOC members who will select the winning city in a secret ballot Oct. 3 in Copenhagen, political and other factors usually dominate the selection rather than technical ones.

The report lauded Chicago for its "compact venue plan with minimal travel time for athletes" and a "well-designed" lakefront Olympic Village that would offer "a special experience for athletes." The IOC complained, however, that reducing traffic would still be "a major challenge" and that a "full financing guarantee was not provided" for the village.

Chicago also drew praise for its high levels of public support, but the IOC noted that its plans to use temporary venues for the Olympic Stadium and other sites "increases the element of risk," as does the fact that the bid provided a financial guarantee with a $750 million cap -- short of the full guarantee sought.

Tokyo won praise for its "highly compact venue plan" that makes "effective use of the city's extensive and high-capacity public transportation network" with only one venue outside a five-mile radius of the city center. Tokyo also got credit for securing a full financial guarantee from the national government, but its "relatively low level of public support" was deemed a "concern," as was the amount of land available for the construction of the Olympic Village.

While Rio earned kudos for "strong public support," the IOC cited the sprawling venue plan and the "insufficient number of hotel rooms" as issues that would make exceptional planning "critical." It also noted that Rio "faces public safety challenges."

Madrid won praise for its enormous public support -- an IOC poll showed 57.9 percent of its denizens strongly supported the bid -- and "short travel times for the athletes." But it noted that Madrid's plans for constructing some venues, including the Olympic Stadium, could result in "significant challenges," while also chiding organizers for not demonstrating "a clear understanding" of the necessity for "a clear delineation of rules and responsibilities."



© 2009 The Washington Post Company