826 replies to this topic

[Athensfan]

 CanisMinor, on 18 May 2012 - 09:25 AM, said:

You have the wrong university in mind. Jerry Sandusky is at Penn State. Franklin Field, which is the discussion you commented on, is part of University of Pennsylvania. In fact, Penn State is not even in Philadelphia, so this is completely irrelevant for a Philly Olympic bid

If you had read the rest of thread you would see that I made a mistake, which I thoroughly apologized for.

[intoronto1125]

Athensfan, on 18 May 2012 - 09:57 AM, said:

If you had read the rest of thread you would see that I made a mistake, which I thoroughly apologized for.

He was referring to my error. I misinterpreted your comments.

[Quaker2001]

How New York City Won the Olympics

Didn't know where else to put this, but this thread seems like a good spot and if you're confused about the title, here's an except from the end..
This report demonstrates that New York City, though not winning the competition to be the Host City for the 2012 Olympic Games, has achieved virtually all of the key elements of the NYC2012 Plan without having to hold the Games. The bold and visionary NYC2012 Plan has strengthened neighborhoods across the City and fostered new public and private investment in long-neglected, underused, industrial corridors. The legacy of the NYC2012 Plan is not confined to one project, borough, or community.

Essentially, this goes along with what I've said about NYC2012. That it was largely a 1-shot deal and after the loss to London, the city essentially said "screw it, we don't need the Olympics, let's do these things anyway." I know it's the antithesis of what the USOC should be looking for in a potential host city (i.e. the type of city that will keep at it until they win), but when an Olympics is tied to infrastructure improvements, that's the problem with the potential of not winning. New York is a world class city in every sense (not that I'm biased or anything) and we don't need the Olympics to justify that. So unlike Los Angeles of the 1960s and 1970s, we're not going to wait around for it to come to us when there's othe projects/infrastructure improvements to worry about in the meantime.

[NY20??]

Great link, thank you for posting!

[CanisMinor]

Quaker2001, on 22 May 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

we're not going to wait around for it to come to us when there's othe projects/infrastructure improvements to worry about in the meantime.

Interesting article, and a lot of what has been said here. The alpha cities in the US are development minded. As such, the time for a bid is generally unique, and what is a great plan for a certain bid year, won't be workable in future years as the space will have been developed regardless. The same is the case for Chicago. Development will proceed, and given the result of the 2016 vote, there was really no reason for Chicago to consider hanging around and bidding again.

European cities have a major NIMBY problem. As such, in some of them, nothing really happens without an external shove. London's east side regeneration would have gone nowhere without an Olympic Commitment.

[Quaker2001]

NY20??, on 22 May 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

Great link, thank you for posting!

What's funny is that they don't even make much, if any mention of new sports facilities in the NYC area. You have 2 brand new baseball stadiums (not all that much use for an Olympics, but still), a new football stadium that has managed to attract the Super Bowl, new arenas in Newark and Brooklyn, and ongoing renovations to Madison Square Garden. All of these have been built since 2005 (the Prudential Center in Newark broke ground in October of that year so it was already in the planning stages) and all but the arena in Brooklyn (scheduled for completion this fall) and the last phases of the renovations to MSG will be done by this summer. Again, all of this happened in spite of New York not getting the Olympics.

[Quaker2001]

CanisMinor, on 22 May 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:

Interesting article, and a lot of what has been said here. The alpha cities in the US are development minded. As such, the time for a bid is generally unique, and what is a great plan for a certain bid year, won't be workable in future years as the space will have been developed regardless. The same is the case for Chicago. Development will proceed, and given the result of the 2016 vote, there was really no reason for Chicago to consider hanging around and bidding again.

European cities have a major NIMBY problem. As such, in some of them, nothing really happens without an external shove. London's east side regeneration would have gone nowhere without an Olympic Commitment.

And that's also about how financing an Olympics works as well. A city in the United States bidding for the Olympics isn't relying on government funding like most other prospective bid cities are. So where, say, Istanbul is bidding for the Olympics, they have backing based on if they win the bid. Whereas New York or Chicago has to be ready to be very self-sufficient and if they're going to have funds on hand for if they win an Olympics, chances are they'll have an alternate plan in place for if they don't win the Olympics that may or may not involve trying again.