arwebb Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 Given this development, won't it soon be time for New York to declare one way or the other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewYork2016 Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 Yes they will. Doctoroff specifically stated that he'll wait until he hears more details on the USOC's procedures, and they'll decide on what to do. Meaning NYC is one of the 6 cities that Gamesbids reported who had shown interest in bidding for 2016. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHOADLEY Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 Alex Garvin spoke at The Chicago Architectural Foundation last week and specifically stated that although he hoped they would, that unfortunately, Mayor Bloomberg has specifically said NYC is out for 2016. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 Pete U: Haven't heard form u guys. Mike B: well, u told us to say nuttin' 'til u declared. Pete U: True. Ready for another round? Mike B: U just give us the signal, and we got $12 mil in the war chest. Jim S: How're we on the stadium front? Dan D: Same deal as last time; except it won't be a surprise any more, and we got 3-D renderings now. Bob B: And Bruno and Silva? Mike B: Silva's tied to the hood and Bruno's in the trunk. Pete U: How 'bout Albany? Dan D: Behind us all the way. Bob C: Who've u got in the White House? Mike B: Well, Mrs. Clinton or Rudi works well with us. Anyone but McCain. Dan D: So, can we declare tomorrow? (PAUSE) Pete U: We'll get back to you next week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHOADLEY Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 Hillary to Chicago Economic Club Annual Dinner Tuesday night: Don't forget I grew up in Chicago, went to high school at Maine West, and was once Chapter President of Wellesley Young Republicans. Thank you Mayor Daley, you are the best! BTW, who should my VP be? Is Obama free? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewYork2016 Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 Alex Garvin spoke at The Chicago Architectural Foundation last week and specifically stated that although he hoped they would, that unfortunately, Mayor Bloomberg has specifically said NYC is out for 2016. Well of course, a Chicago supporter would hope to be the case... :: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seamus21514 Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 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.) uh...Kills is dutch for inlet, and they are already planning to start a highspeed ferry from south ferry to fresh kills with a ten minute transport time. Also, there is a proposed nascar track to be built near the highway, and I guess they could scrapp that and build an olympic park there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seamus21514 Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 Or they could rename it Olympic park or a generic name like Fresh valley, meadow, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 uh...Kills is dutch for inlet, and they are already planning to start a highspeed ferry from south ferry to fresh kills with a ten minute transport time. Also, there is a proposed nascar track to be built near the highway, and I guess they could scrapp that and build an olympic park there. uh...BOTH the USOC and IOC nixed NYC-2012's original plans of using 'escorted' ferries just for the athletes and press to and from the OV (on the East River) to the West Side Stadium (on the Hudson) as "...too risky." And you want both the USOC and IOC to again accept more ferries for thousands of people? I don't think you realize the liability issues involved, S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seamus21514 Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 uh...Kills is dutch for inlet, and they are already planning to start a highspeed ferry from south ferry to fresh kills with a ten minute transport time. Also, there is a proposed nascar track to be built near the highway, and I guess they could scrapp that and build an olympic park there. uh...BOTH the USOC and IOC nixed NYC-2012's original plans of using 'escorted' ferries just for the athletes and press to and from the OV (on the East River) to the West Side Stadium (on the Hudson) as "...too risky." And you want both the USOC and IOC to again accept more ferries for thousands of people? I don't think you realize the liability issues involved, S. uh....i take a ferry to school everyday, and the only deadly crash was in 2003. and that is only cause the captain fainted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOtherRob Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 uh...Kills is dutch for inlet, and they are already planning to start a highspeed ferry from south ferry to fresh kills with a ten minute transport time. Also, there is a proposed nascar track to be built near the highway, and I guess they could scrapp that and build an olympic park there. uh...BOTH the USOC and IOC nixed NYC-2012's original plans of using 'escorted' ferries just for the athletes and press to and from the OV (on the East River) to the West Side Stadium (on the Hudson) as "...too risky." And you want both the USOC and IOC to again accept more ferries for thousands of people? I don't think you realize the liability issues involved, S. uh....i take a ferry to school everyday, and the only deadly crash was in 2003. and that is only cause the captain fainted. I don't think your school ferry is a big terror target. A boat full of Olympic athletes/delegates during Olympic fortnight in an Olympic city could well be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seamus21514 Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 School ferry? wtf? Its the staten island ferry. WIth alot of commuters and stuff, like 300,00 passerngers a day in btwn the five miles of bay btwn manhattan boro and staten island boro. Small boat? I think not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seamus21514 Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 and i forgot to add that there are national guardsman...sortof the americans militia thing there, and that the school dosen't run it-never heard of the un running a ferry before, have you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewYork2016 Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 Seamus, the ferries are fine. But the bottomline is, won't work with the USOC and the IOC. NYC scrapped the plan of special trains and ferries for athletes and officials right after the IOC received the answers to questonnaires that NYC2012 submitted. So please, the train and ferry plan is dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA84 Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 Alex Garvin spoke at The Chicago Architectural Foundation last week and specifically stated that although he hoped they would, that unfortunately, Mayor Bloomberg has specifically said NYC is out for 2016. Well of course, a Chicago supporter would hope to be the case... :: The statement is in line with the Los Angeles Times article as well: Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington and Houston have signaled interest in staging the 2016 Games. It remains uncertain whether New York, the unsuccessful U.S. candidate for the 2012 Olympics, is under consideration for 2016 Actually, that makes it sound as though it is uncertain the USOC is going to consider NYC for 2016. :rock: Glad to see you back MHOADLY :grinning: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nykfan845 Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 How interesting . . . MHOADLEY, can you elaborate in that statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nykfan845 Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 Alex Garvin spoke at The Chicago Architectural Foundation last week and specifically stated that although he hoped they would, that unfortunately, Mayor Bloomberg has specifically said NYC is out for 2016. Well of course, a Chicago supporter would hope to be the case... :: The reasoned I said "how interesting" is that something doesn't add up. Last week, Bloomberg reportedly said that New York won't bid for the 2016 Olympics, as claimed by MHOADLEY. Yet, exactly one week ago, Doctoroff reported that New York is still interested in bidding for the 2016 Games, and that they're just waiting for the USOC to reveal the bid process. I also recently contacted a City Council member about a 2016 bid, and they said it was an "important issue". They were also open to any specific ideas or proposals for a 2016 Olympics. I'm also surprised that newspapers didn't gobble this up. It'd be a great global news story. It all seems strange to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOlympiadsW Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 exactly....NYC IS VERY interested in 2016, and I am ausre has been in touch with the USOC...Bloomberg, Doctroff, and many other top NYC officials have ALL stated this interest since last July, and have all made the cities interest in 2016 more then clear...anyone who denies this or tries to claim this is on another planet (yes you MAHOLNY or w/e your name is)..... Also, I am sorry but as I said before the USA's delegation to Torino, certain specifications laid by the USOC, etc. all point directly towards NYC...cities were supposed to be quiet and not have a bunch of vague and stupid press conferences (llike some cities)...they mean nothing at this point...Actions speak much ouder then words...and this is definatey the case here for NYC...get your facts straight p.s.-winners for the 2008 race also point towards NYC more then any other city if you want to be trivial Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikel Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 exactly....NYC IS VERY interested in 2016, and I am ausre has been in touch with the USOC...Bloomberg, Doctroff, and many other top NYC officials have ALL stated this interest since last July, and have all made the cities interest in 2016 more then clear...anyone who denies this or tries to claim this is on another planet (yes you MAHOLNY or w/e your name is).....Also, I am sorry but as I said before the USA's delegation to Torino, certain specifications laid by the USOC, etc. all point directly towards NYC...cities were supposed to be quiet and not have a bunch of vague and stupid press conferences (llike some cities)...they mean nothing at this point...Actions speak much ouder then words...and this is definatey the case here for NYC...get your facts straight p.s.-winners for the 2008 race also point towards NYC more then any other city if you want to be trivial When will the US applicant city be announced? The IOC receive the applicant cities for 2014 in July 2005 (2 years before the 2007 Session), so I suppose for 2016 the IOC will recive the applicant cities in July 2007... :help: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA84 Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 Also, I am sorry but as I said before the USA's delegation to Torino, certain specifications laid by the USOC, etc. all point directly towards NYC...cities were supposed to be quiet and not have a bunch of vague and stupid press conferences (llike some cities)...they mean nothing at this point...Actions speak much ouder then words...and this is definatey the case here for NYC...get your facts straight Unfortunatly, the Torino links are now gone so I can't search and find the quote. But I recall when I pointed out during Torino that this delegation was a violation of the USOC's directive not to campaign, it was dismissed as a courtesy to a former bid city. :glare: But you are right - actions speak louder than words. Specifically the USOC's reversal of it's earlier decision for NYC to be the sole U.S. candidate for 2016 if they were to loose 2012. Obviously, by opening up the bidding again, they have doubts of NYC's abilities. Like it or not, it's an open race at this point. :unclesam: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOlympiadsW Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 Also, I am sorry but as I said before the USA's delegation to Torino, certain specifications laid by the USOC, etc. all point directly towards NYC...cities were supposed to be quiet and not have a bunch of vague and stupid press conferences (llike some cities)...they mean nothing at this point...Actions speak much ouder then words...and this is definatey the case here for NYC...get your facts straight Unfortunatly, the Torino links are now gone so I can't search and find the quote. But I recall when I pointed out during Torino that this delegation was a violation of the USOC's directive not to campaign, it was dismissed as a courtesy to a former bid city. :glare: regardless whats done is done..and I am sorry but that action alone speaks volumes compared to some stupid and vague press conference from certain cities, that could very well be "pipe dreaming"....ironically the cities that hold such press conferences early never actually get too far later... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOlympiadsW Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 it doesn't matter we all know the USOC isn't going to go with the second best city...they are going to go with the best if they bid..NYC! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 Also, I am sorry but as I said before the USA's delegation to Torino, certain specifications laid by the USOC, etc. all point directly towards NYC...cities were supposed to be quiet and not have a bunch of vague and stupid press conferences (llike some cities)...they mean nothing at this point...Actions speak much ouder then words...and this is definatey the case here for NYC...get your facts straight Unfortunatly, the Torino links are now gone so I can't search and find the quote. But I recall when I pointed out during Torino that this delegation was a violation of the USOC's directive not to campaign, it was dismissed as a courtesy to a former bid city. :glare: But you are right - actions speak louder than words. Specifically the USOC's reversal of it's earlier decision for NYC to be the sole U.S. candidate for 2016 if they were to loose 2012. Obviously, by opening up the bidding again, they have doubts of NYC's abilities. Like it or not, it's an open race at this point. :unclesam: Oh, I'm sure the USOC was well aware of Messrs. Doctoroff and Betts (who was officially appointed by the White House) and others being busy schmoozing in Torino. But I'm sure it wasn't just to see the events and the snow. If that was really a violation of the USOC's directives, I think Uebe & co. would've told the NYers so. I'm also sure the Big Apple contingent and the USOC have compared their Torino notes -- after all they're eventually on the same side. But remember also, the USOC has said that its issues with the IOC haven't been resolved either, and one of the things they wanted to talk to w/ the cities was the issue of who gets how much, etc. So, that's a new item that might realign the cities' interest or zeal. For NYC, it's still the stadium issue. If NYC can show that even a convertible Shea-Olympic stadium will be a done deal, w/o the heart-stopping drama of the West Side Stadium, then they're ahead of the pack. And the other thing is, the world knows that Tokyo and Rome will be in the mix. So you already have two "A"-list cities in there, who would really have a chance against those 2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOlympiadsW Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 plus NYC wasn't exactly crazy abotu going after the Olympics after losing 2012..and we all know the USOC needs this race to show the IOC that they "chose the best"...just going with NYC again automatically would have been arrogant and agaisnt their humble approach...however I am sorry but the 2016 timeline for the USOC is pointing towards the msot established bid....NYC....sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA84 Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 plus NYC wasn't exactly crazy abotu going after the Olympics after losing 2012..and we all know the USOC needs this race to show the IOC that they "chose the best"...just going with NYC again automatically would have been arrogant and agaisnt their humble approach...however I am sorry but the 2016 timeline for the USOC is pointing towards the msot established bid....NYC....sorry I totally agree. The USOC needs to show that they are choosing the best bid that the U.S. has at this point. So we have to wait and see who comes up with it. Obviously at this point we don't know if it is NYC since the USOC recinded it's original intention of having NYC bid for 2016 alone: From the archives: .USOC Says NYC Has No Advantage In some ways this U.S. race reminds me of the 1989-1990 bid for the 1996 Games. All signs pointed towards Athens. Then . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.