Rio De Janeiro proves best choice for 2016 Olympics
By Taric Watts-WilliamsReporter, The VOICE
Oct. 6 - the International Olympic Committee chose Brazil's Rio de Janeiro to host the 2016 Olympics. The famous tropical paradise beat finalists such as Tokyo, Madrid, and Chicago.
There's been a lot of controversy over who deserved what more, and whether or not Chicago's loss can be tallied up as the President's failure.
The general perception is that Chicago is a trashy city, with one of the highest murder rates of any city in America. Its streets are filthy, its people are poor and crooked, and the architecture is ugly.
As far as aesthetics go, I couldn't agree more. Come on, it's far from being a prestigious urban landscape within its own country, let alone the world. Sure, there are a few skyscrapers and a lake, but any beauty in that amounts to a watered down version of New York City.
Now, take a look at Rio de Janeiro. If I get half a chance, I'm bailing out there in a second. It does have an urban landscape, but it is not as dense or as bland. It's sandwiched between endless rainforest and the better half of the Atlantic Ocean.
Complete that with perfect weather, you've got a paradise on Earth that beats the backdrop of Midwestern farmland and a dirty lake. Rio is the clear choice for tourists.
Even if the two cities were indeed equal, locations of past Olympic Games have been far out of Brazil's favor. This will be the first time the Summer Olympics will be held anywhere in South America. Over the last two decades, they've been held in Europe (Athens, Barcelona), Australia (Sydney), Asia (Beijing), and North America (Atlanta). Even South Africa has a bid for the year 2020.
So it's about time we give another continent a chance. It already has a culture and landscape we adore, as well as a diverse population that rivals many cities in America. If you're curious about the imagery in those parts, check out rio2016.org.
Please send comments to taric@gccvoice.com
