Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

aquablue's Achievements


Participant (2/16)



  1. What about San Fran? I would think it has even more international appeal as a city than Chicago.
  2. Why would the lack of a stadium be an issue? Chicago proposed a temporary stadium, as would NYC I assume.
  3. For legacy you need to follow the London model. Find an inner city brownfield or industrial wasteland, regenerate it with parkland, affordable housing and a permanent aquatic center/arena/etc, with at least one building of iconic architectural stature. Construct the temporary stadium and wrap it with some kind of LED screen, but demolish it after the games unlike London. Extend some transit line or build another, improve airport facilities, etc.. Help inner city kids get involved in sports. There you have it, a perfect recipe for a fantastic legacy. Do not bid with all ready built facilities. The IOC want to see tangible progress made and a real hard product left over. I do not believe Chicago went far enough on legacy. For one thing, there were no signature architectural statements made. Neither were there any transit improvements of any significance in the Bid. I can think of several places to regenerate in various cities... NY - Sunnyside Yards / South Bronx / parts of Queens DC - Anacostia waterfront/Inner N.E SF - Area around Candlestick Park Chicago - South Side Regarding Transit: NY - New Air-Train to Laguardia Airport or JFK-->Manhattan direct rail. SF - New light rail lines DC - Extension of street car project / Metro extensions Chicago - Extension of L, Fast rail to O'Hare, Light Rail for South Side. Finally, if we are not going to bother we might as not bid. The competition is intense and most of the other global cities will be building such structures and transit improvements. You need to compete or don't bother. They LOVE legacy, it seems a huge factor in their decision making.
  4. DC has decent transit, compared to Dallas or whatever other car dependent sun-belt city you name. The Metro there is first rate.
  5. I wouldn't put DC in the same realm as Dallas when it comes to international appeal. Dallas is a business city, DC has more to offer the international visitor. I can see DC winning, but never Dallas. DC has the capital card to play at least, it has that special notoriety that isn't just some average American City in the world's eye. I just don't see where SFO could get the room for the Olympics.. it is such a small city with hardly any room to build anything. It would be one of the top options though, along with NYC and Chiago. I do not believe LA would get a third before the other top cities in the US. Again, on the topic of DC, it is far safer now compared to the bad old days, and it has done a good job on revitalizing its downtown. It also has fantastic transit for a city of its size, American that is. Philadelphia shouldn't bother. I was there a while ago. While I liked the small lively central city, the city didn't come across as an Olympic City and much of the city is a ghetto. However, when it comes down to it, there is really one two or three cities than can host in the new era of glitzy games.
  6. If the USA somehow manages to get lucky, they should make sure that no games were played in extremely hot conditions (i.e, Orlando in July) like last time. That was a travesty. Regarding other likely hosts for 2026 if current rules stand, IMO the following have a decent chance: Morocco, Canada. Mexico will not get it thrice so soon. I have a sneaking suspicion that England will get it though after Quatar, just to piss of the Americans. Also, if it goes to America, that means the 2030 bid in S.A would be in jeopardy. And if you ask me how England could bid, the rules will magically change in a few years once Blatter retires.
  7. Oh, and I'm not a NY'er nor do I live there. I'm just being realistic. When cities like London, Paris, Rio, etc.. are winning, does anybody really think Dallas, or even DC has a chance in the new era of big glitzy prestige games? Not a chance.
  8. I think NYC should bid. They don't need it at all, but they are the best chance the US has IMO if the games are all about glitz and prestige. L.A has had it twice, it just doesn't seem fair for them to get it again. Dallas is too vapid, dull and has no international appeal with poor transport-- OUT. San Francisco is too small and cramped, too many NIMBY's and a lack of land to develop. DC could do it (being the capital) but it is governmental, dull, vapid and culturally uninteresting city and it is just too small as well. NYC is supposed to be an Alpha world City, along with London and Tokyo. It is only right that they become an Olympic City and they probably have the best chance of swaying emotions of voters. NYC has global cache. No other city in the country should even attempt. I must correct something.. DC is culturally interesting in certain areas, but not when it comes to culture that has a global appeal. Also, I forgot Chicago, but then again, they were never going to bid again so soon.. I also meant that no other city other than those on that list I wrote should attempt. Another point: NYC would have a huge challenge to try and put the Olympics on, i.e, lack of land for devel, security, etc... they really shouldn't attempt at all. . However, they still have more to offer than the other choices, including plenty of industrial areas to develop, transport links that need updating, airports that need new rail links, etc... The games might be an incentive to invest in thse areas that never see any funding in NYC.
  • Create New...