Jump to content

The United States and the 2016 Summer Olympics


Hank

Recommended Posts

really only people living outside the USA can make a comment as to which city they believe/most believe is the most internationally well known and recognized....

I agree!

The US city with the greatest international stature is Little Rock!

They even already have their own theme tune.....

gentle5.jpg

Why, Ensg. Nellie Forbush (of "South Pacific') and the Mr. and Mrs. Clinton are from cosmopolitan Little Rock!!

There was obviously no point to all the debates about which city the US should forward for 2016 - Little Rock would certainly destroy any opposition!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 268
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Another point on the "capital candidate city."  Everyone here is handicapping that 2020 might go to a Southern hemisphere city.  But neither Cape Town nor Rio are the RSA and Brazil's capital cities.  As a matter of fact, RSA techically has 2 capitals: Pretoria and Bloemfontaine -- neither of which RSA will advance as an Olympic candidate.  So does that mean Cape Town will lose along with another non-capital city, Rio?  (God forbid 2020 should go to Madrid!)  The capital city thing is purely coincidental.  Most nations have their largest city as the capital; some don't.

Also, NY is not the capital of the US; but it is of the world!  The planet's administrative body calls New York City (and soon to be Brooklyn or Queens again) home!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another point on the "capital candidate city."  Everyone here is handicapping that 2020 might go to a Southern hemisphere city.  But neither Cape Town nor Rio are the RSA and Brazil's capital cities.  As a matter of fact, RSA techically has 2 capitals: Pretoria and Bloemfontaine -- neither of which RSA will advance as an Olympic candidate.  So does that mean Cape Town will lose along with another non-capital city, Rio?  (God forbid 2020 should go to Madrid!)  The capital city thing is purely coincidental.  Most nations have their largest city as the capital; some don't.

Also, NY is not the capital of the US; but it is of the world!  The planet's administrative body calls New York City (and soon to be Brooklyn or Queens again) home!!

I don't call NYC home  :rolleyes: Spain and the European Union are my homes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another point on the "capital candidate city."  Everyone here is handicapping that 2020 might go to a Southern hemisphere city.  But neither Cape Town nor Rio are the RSA and Brazil's capital cities.  As a matter of fact, RSA techically has 2 capitals: Pretoria and Bloemfontaine -- neither of which RSA will advance as an Olympic candidate.  So does that mean Cape Town will lose along with another non-capital city, Rio?  (God forbid 2020 should go to Madrid!)  The capital city thing is purely coincidental.  Most nations have their largest city as the capital; some don't.

Also, NY is not the capital of the US; but it is of the world!  The planet's administrative body calls New York City (and soon to be Brooklyn or Queens again) home!!

I don't call NYC home  :rolleyes: Spain and the European Union are my homes

Umm, Mikel.

A capital of an area is different from your home

I don't need to explain it, do I? :rock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the characteristics that Chairman Ueby pointed out, many won't admit it though specially some other city's supporters  :;): , will help NYC in many ways.

We have the infrastructure going for us. I don't need to elaborate everything and I've already stated each detail about it in past posts. A 2016 NYC Games will showcase the most modern arenas and stadiums to the world. Unlike some cities out there pretending to be one of the strongest bids, no olympic stadium and proposed a football stadium for the Opening and Closing Ceremonies and another stadium more than 100 miles away for athletics. We know what the Chairman pointed out, the olympic stadium would be host for the ceremonies and the athletics competition.

We don't have a problem about private and public support. After the 2012 loss, 75% of NY'ers want the city to bid for 2016. The Judases of 2012, Bruno and Silver, want the city to go forward with another bid. Businesses contributed more than US$50 million for the 2012 bid, another bid won't be a problem. Not like some other city there where it's business community is pessimistic and kept in the dark by the city government about it's intentions. I'm pretty sure my company will donate another million...  :;):

NYC has a very realistic chance of winning after IOC Voting Members were impressed by NYC2012 Bid Team's professionalism and presentation. You really can't gauge 2012 that much against NYC as it hasn't played its full potential at that time. Unless of course, if you're cheering against NYC or cheering for another competing city, you'll dwell on those negatives from the 2012 bid to satisfy what you desire. :;):

Those Judases that killed the bid, are in the boat for another run in 2016. So if everything falls into place, which I think is already happening, NYC will be ready and will be the city that meets the requirements of the USOC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those Judases that killed the bid, are in the boat for another run in 2016. So if everything falls into place, which I think is already happening, NYC will be ready and will be the city that meets the requirements of the USOC.

You seem very confident that "those Judases" won't betray their city again! If you don't mind me asking,what makes you so sure?

Also,I can't help recall hearing that Dan Doctoroff talked about NYC2012 being "a now or never bid" or words to that effect! Will he be involved in any 2016 bid and,if so, how is he going to "eat those words??  :hmm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem very confident that "those Judases" won't betray their city again! If you don't mind me asking,what makes you so sure?
They were in full support for an Olympic Stadium anywhere but the West Side of Manhattan. They've stated their position right after the killer vote and supported Plan B for NYC2012. It makes sense to assume "confidently" that they'll back up an NYC2016 bid with Queens as the centerpiece. That's the main reason I think why NYC2012 lost, add to that, the IOC was ready to give 2012 to Europe.

Here's what Silver said after the loss...

"Although our dream of playing host to the 2012 Summer Olympics may have come to an end, perhaps this experience could be the foundation for a successful bid in 2016."

Also,I can't help recall hearing that Dan Doctoroff talked about NYC2012 being "a now or never bid" or words to that effect! Will he be involved in any 2016 bid and,if so, how is he going to "eat those words??  

He said this in a New York Times Interview...

We really haven't been thinking about it a whole lot, I would be interested to hear what they have to say about the process, and once we understand that, we would respond."

NY Times Story

It's not just him, mind you, that's eating his words. You can include Mayor Mike. He stated that New Yorkers should move forward and forget about the Olympics. He was insistent that 2012 was NYC's only shot. After Roland Betts was interviewed after being chosen by the President for the Turin Games, the Mayor's reaction was...

"Whether or not the USOC would select us, I don't know. The USOC has its problems with the IOC. They've got to work that out. You know, Doctoroff spent 10 years of his life. It's an enormous sacrifice and now he and I have other things to do and I don't know whether or not we will as a country will have a team - probably. Would New York City try to be that team? It's premature to tell. It's an enormous commitment. This just doesn't happen. It doesn't play by the Marquis of Queensbury rules, either.''

He went from negative to neutral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well first off the "two Judases" ONLY had a say over the stadium and the whole Jets situation, nothing else....in 2016 the stadium will surely be a non-issue, and therefore they would have no decisive and overly important decisions to make...plus on top of that BOTH of them have said that they support a future bid from NYC (and clearly would have been 100% NYC 2012, with the exception of that stadium which was an issue beyond the bid).....

as for the "now or never thing"...I think it was more one of those "in the moment" last minute desperate action by Doctroff...I personally thought it was just a thing to say to get some last minute votes, nothing more....and to prove this, Doctroff among many others has not ruled out a future NYC bid, and even aid the city is considering it....why they said this in 2012, we will never know...but we do know that a lot of people say a lot of false things/promises in the Olympic bid process- and thiss is just one example of it....NYC is interested in 2016, and their actions in recent months alone by high ranking officials alone proves this....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't call NYC home  :rolleyes: Spain and the European Union are my homes

uhmmm... I don't consider you a member of this planet or race -- so your opinion counts for nothing, pendeja!

Pendeja tu abuela, gilipollas. :upside:

And sorry, for me you're also an UFO... an unidentified object...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you are being hypocritical. You claim that the best bid out forth from the US is the city you'd cheer for, and people shouldn't be choosing winners without seeing the bid first, and yet in seamus' thread asking where everyone is from, you directly stated that Chicago would be site of the 2016 Olympics.

:grinning: That was for you and the other NYC supporters benefit.  I am disappointed it took so long for someone to respond  :grinning:

Frankly I think a lot of the NYC supporters are frightened about competition from other cities and for good reason. The inability of getting the west side stadium approved in 2005 and the WTC site still being a hole in the ground after 5 years raises red flags as to whether New York has the ability to get all necessary infrastructure in place in time for an Olympics.  The unlawful transit strike this past Christmas raises questions as to whether the city can keep moving during an Olympics as well.

But as I said, we haven't heard anything from the USOC, we haven't seen bid plans from any city, both here and abroad.  So any theories that are flying about are merely conjecture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly I think a lot of the NYC supporters are frightened about competition from other cities and for good reason. The inability of getting the west side stadium approved in 2005 and the WTC site still being a hole in the ground after 5 years raises red flags as to whether New York has the ability to get all necessary infrastructure in place in time for an Olympics.  The unlawful transit strike this past Christmas raises questions as to whether the city can keep moving during an Olympics as well.

Wow! You really proved my point. A lot of people who concentrate on the negatives of the NYC2012 bid are the ones who's either supporting another city, or just doesn't want NYC to get the games at all.

What's the West Side Stadium when the new Mets Ballpark (very possible site for the Olympic Stadium), new Yankee Stadium, new Meadowlands NFL Stadium, new Madison Square Garden, Brooklyn Nets Arena, new Nassau Coliseum, an Aquatics Center in Flushing Meadows Park, a new beach volleyball arena in Coney Island, Red Bull Park, new Newark Arena, the Javits Extension, add to that development proposals for Willet's Point right beside Flushing Meadows Sports Park are all going through and wll start construction within the next few months or so?

Clearly, the number of promises to build for the 2012 Olympics that have still been fulfilled, at least 80-85%, are greater than the ones that weren't built. The only ones that were never constructed were the temporary facilities. The West Side Stadium was never a part of Plan B, and would never again be a part of another bid from NYC. It's time for other city's supporters to not dwell on that mistake because NYC won't use it again. Of course I admit, some would want NYC to use again for their advantage. :;):

The strike that was done by the Union was illegal and it was provoked by the Union Leaders themselves. They're now going to jail, story is done.

And the WTC site is a different situation. We're dealing with Larry Silverstein who doesn't want to build the tower because he can't even fill up #7, the NY State Government, the NJ State Government, the NY City Government and the Port Authority of NY and NJ. It's a logjam. You have different entities that have different intentions.

Anyway, does anyone remember that NYC had a deal with the Unions that they won't strike for the 7 years leading up to the games, during the games, and until the games are done? It's time to remind everyone that although were weren't awarded the 2012 games, the City dealt with the Unions and make the 2012 Olympic bid possible and be comfortable and convenient for the athletes and spectators themselves.

And we've heard from the USOC itself. Chairman Ueberroth pointed out some details on a possible bid from the USOC...  1) that city would need to have an existing stadium, or one fully approved, capable of playing host to the opening and closing ceremonies and the track and field competition; 2) all the infrastructure must be “already built or fully committed”; 3) an Olympic and media village, and adequate hotel and convention space; 4) it has the support of the private sector along from local, state and federal governments; 5) and a realistic chance to win against international candidates.

That might not be everything they're looking for a bid city, but it definitely eliminated a lot of cities that we're putting in the mix, even cities that are considered to be the strongest bids (of course by it's cheerleaders) won't qualify in there.

Clearly, the negatives are outweighed by the positives of an NYC re-bid. There are just some people who blindly wants to deny it.  :unclesam:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LA84 as always, I think you are one of the best posters on here and I just want to let you know I always respect your opinion and see where you are comming from in several areas....

First of all, I think it is the other way around....I think everyone else who is supporting other US cities for the 2016 race knows dam well that NYC has a significant advantage over any other US city that bids...they have the experience, was well received by the IOC with their presentations and skills during the 2012 race, and had a VERY strong 2012 bid.....they already took down half of the US cities that are looking at 2016 in the 2012 domestic race, and I am pretty sure they will do that again since those bids all had significant flaws and some are even worse then they were for 2012...as for the new commers (Chicago, Philly, and San Diego/Tijana) we will have to see their bids (which are from scratch at this point) before anyone can get excited about them...all could (and  somealready have) flaws that will be huge factors when comparing them to NYC....

LA84 I am surprised to ssee you bringing up the transit strike as if ti would hurt a 2016 bid from NYC...GIVE ME A BREAK....the problem was quickly resolved and really was hardly a huge issue, and is very unlikely to happen again...plus that could happen in any major city...even your beloved Chicago...that is just purely stupid to bring up...and it will be 100% a non-issue for 2016

As for the stadium...ummm that problem has long been RESOLVED...did you miss it when NYC completely dropped the West Side Stadium and came up with a new plan?....it isn't like NYC is starting up again saying "we want the qwest side stadium for 2016, we can do it probably"....instead they will go with a surething that will 100% happen....if they had gone with the Mewts stadium from the start of the 2012 race, we all know they would have done much better at the end....starting with such a stadium for 2016 will eliminate any stadium fear...the real things we should fear are the new stadiums proposed in the other USA cities that may bid for 2016, who knows how reliable they may be.....especially with plans from scratch that haven't been known and planned out like NYC's for so long

Finally, going back to my initial post early in this thread...I know people fear NYC and that is the reason for much of their attack...if it wasn't then why wouldn't someone who supports Chicago also be going after Philly, SF, Washington, etc.?...because you don't feel threatened by them...just as we saw in 2012...while NYC, London, and Paris were all mostly attacked, no one even bothered to go after Moscow...why?...because the knew it wasn't going to win...NYC will have a leg up, and things seem to be more and more pointing in their direction, and it is likely that if they bid they may be chosen....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

also going with WTC...that is probably one of the most complicated pieces of property int he world to deal with a far as future planning...there are just so many people to consider, both business and the victims...what did you expect them to do, just go an plop some huge skyscrapper there...I think the debate over the future of the site is necessary and a good thing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

they already took down half of the US cities that are looking at 2016 in the 2012 domestic race, and I am pretty sure they will do that again since those bids all had significant flaws and some are even worse then they were for 2012...

Have specific plans been announced for any bid?  I haven't seen any...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they already took down half of the US cities that are looking at 2016 in the 2012 domestic race, and I am pretty sure they will do that again since those bids all had significant flaws and some are even worse then they were for 2012...

Have specific plans been announced for any bid?  I haven't seen any...

nothing "official"...but many of the venues can be predicted, and some (mainly the main stadium) have been announced in various rpess releases by potential U bid cities...and already some of these plans are very speculative and may raise eye brows within the USOC if they are officially used (which is likely in many cases)....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they already took down half of the US cities that are looking at 2016 in the 2012 domestic race, and I am pretty sure they will do that again since those bids all had significant flaws and some are even worse then they were for 2012...

Have specific plans been announced for any bid?  I haven't seen any...

Gee, splinter - can't you hazard an educated guess as to what the USOC wants to do?  They want a short, decisive process.  They want to wrap up the talks by the end of next month, May.  What cities realistically do you think they will talk to?  Wichita?  Little Rock?  Des Moines?  C'mon -- you got more common sense than that.  The world/IOC already knows two of the possible foreign bidders -- major, "A" list cities.  Uhmmm, put it together, splinter...   :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ive kinda rethought everything...although new york is amazing and i love it a lot...i dont think i could justify why an IOC member after considering many many things including revenues and the actualy games itself, why new york should be chosen over

1. Rio

2. Buenos Aires who i believe are both capable

i dont think its a step in the right direction for the IOC eventhough they'd make a killing...however id def support a new york bid over madrid, paris, a germany city or tokyo...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ive kinda rethought everything...although new york is amazing and i love it a lot...i dont think i could justify why an IOC member after considering many many things including revenues and the actualy games itself, why new york should be chosen over

1. Rio

2. Buenos Aires who i believe are both capable

i dont think its a step in the right direction for the IOC eventhough they'd make a killing...however id def support a new york bid over madrid, paris, a germany city or tokyo...

I think Rio and Buenos Aires will have their time.  It's all a matter of timing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there even a plan for a stadium?  A renovated Shea?  A new stadium?  Anything?  Without a stadium, a US bid isn't going anywhere!  And that just isn't New York, that includes Chicago, San Fran, Philly and the rest of them.

And yes, New York has announced their interest in bidding. Ruy Giuliani, Dan Doctoroff and other NYC officials have claimed they will not make an official decision until the USOC process is revealed. And with Ueberroth claiming that the new process will be shorter, cheaper, and less laborious, I would think that NYC will bid.

And as mentioned probably a billion times already, NYC will probably use an expanded version of the Mets Stadium for the site of the Ceremonies and athletics.

O.K.  Then I am mistaken...I apologize.  Is they new Mets stadium a done deal, or just some pictures and a bunch of talk?

The actual baseball park is a done deal. However, the expansion of the park into an Olympic Stadium would probably be made when the time comes, and when NYC puts together their bid again.

I can't imagine a olympic stadium like that. It's a nice stadium, but its a retro baseball stadium. Not a sleek design like athens or london. With a bid name like new york,it can't afford to haf a atlanta-esqe stadium. I think with 2016, they should build a dedicated stadium, albeit somewhere where there will be land dedicated for it, mabey fresh kills, because they are making a park there 3x central park. That could be an olympic park, cause of plenty of room. And its on the site of the then gone dump, so I'm sure other people won't like to build there.

And who is going to pay for it?

Sorry - we don't build white elephants in the U.S. Either the facilities can be used after the games or we don't host them.

Besides - Atlanta did it (retro baseball stadium used for ceremonies and track/field)

Your just anti new york. My thinking is that it would have a retractable roof, hence making it also sutible for conventions and concerts. It would be in a park beigng constructed now with other venues. Your just biased. Roltel, I agree there wasn't anything wrong with the atlanta stadium, but i think a spectacular city needs a spectacular stadium like london or athens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seamus, it cannot be at Fresh Kills or some place remote like that.  For one thing, there already is a #7 subway stop by Shea/Flushing.  How will you get crowds to some remote place like Fresh Kill?  (Oh, and with a name like that -- I don't think an NYC2016 org would be too thrilled with that name.)  

It's NOT only the venue locations, s, but the venues' accessibility by the thousands of people and entities involved in the events.  That has to be looked at.  Did u read what the USOC wants?  A lot of "infrastructure already or will be in place" -- not fresh blueprints with yesterday's ink on it.  Flushing Meadows Park is at a great confluence of mass transit stops and a freeway or 2.  So, some new, remote place like a Fresh (or Rotten) Kills site won't fly.

Also, that 'retractable' thing won't work.  It didn't work for Montreal; it won't be economically feasible for a stadium to be deconstructed.  Again, who will pay for its 2 week use?

New York had a great plan for 2012 -- except for the last-minute switcheroo w/ the main stadium.  In terms of transit, accessibility and hotel rooms, NYC had a fairly compleat package.  The odds were just against a No. American Games, and the IOC had their Euro-caps on.  

Chicago will have to scramble fast in the next few weeks to match what NYC will just dust off again.  (The WTC delays are nothing.  It's a very complicated legal/moral situation -- unlike any other; but I am sure it will all get sorted out and built (or most of it, anyway) by the vote in 2009; and thus all ready way ahead of 2016.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ive kinda rethought everything...although new york is amazing and i love it a lot...i dont think i could justify why an IOC member after considering many many things including revenues and the actualy games itself, why new york should be chosen over

1. Rio

2. Buenos Aires who i believe are both capable

i dont think its a step in the right direction for the IOC eventhough they'd make a killing...however id def support a new york bid over madrid, paris, a germany city or tokyo...

I'm surprised, Mo. If either Rio or BA got 2016 (which, at least in Rio's case, I don't think can be discounted, even against the likes of a NYC or Chicago), it would be a sure-fire killer to Capetown's 2020 hopes _ I really, really doubt the IOC would go for two southern hemisphere, new frontiers hosts in a row.

And to the US posters here _ all this rivalry and debate is a great thing _ it just shows that by the time the USOC makes its decision, it'll have a number of strong bids to choose from and will be able to go with the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they already took down half of the US cities that are looking at 2016 in the 2012 domestic race, and I am pretty sure they will do that again since those bids all had significant flaws and some are even worse then they were for 2012...

Have specific plans been announced for any bid?  I haven't seen any...

Gee, splinter - can't you hazard an educated guess as to what the USOC wants to do?  They want a short, decisive process.  They want to wrap up the talks by the end of next month, May.  What cities realistically do you think they will talk to?  Wichita?  Little Rock?  Des Moines?  C'mon -- you got more common sense than that.  The world/IOC already knows two of the possible foreign bidders -- major, "A" list cities.  Uhmmm, put it together, splinter...   :rolleyes:

I really can't...Most of the potential bid cities need a stadium and you really can't fit an athletics track in an NFL stadium.  Are Philly and Chicago and where ever else going to build new stadiums right after building or renovating others?  Realistically?  Of course not, but stranger things have happened!

The stadium situation is in New York's favor, if they can get it done.  But we won't know until it is over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...