Latest city rankings from ATR site

[baron-pierreIV]

I am on the mailing list of NYC2012.  I just received the following bit which the NYC2012 quotes from GB's rival site: www.aroundtherings.com.  It's how, by ATR's version of the BidIndex, the 5 candidate cities now rank after the latest adventures of the NYC bid:

"Paris still has the top score, rising three points to 89, followed by London at 87, up two points, with New York surging in the Power Index to 83, a dramatic rise of six points in the three weeks since the last ranking.

Here's a city-by-city breakdown:

London (87; 85 prevous) -- Higher score in bid operations due to Prime Minister Tony Blair's increased involvement in the campaign and an uptick on security after a briefing for ATR by Scotland Yard on Olympic security plans. "London will not lose this bid over security," Metropolitan police chief Sir Ian Blair tells Around the Rings.

Madrid (74; 75 previous) -- Concern about the supply of hotel rooms in Madrid in the IOC Evaluation Commisssion report leads to a drop of one point in Power Index for Madrid.

Moscow (64; 66 previous) -- A two point drop for the Russian bid after complaints from the IOC Evaluation Commission that insufficient information was supplied by Moscow in accommodations and marketing.

New York City (83, 77 previous) -- Solving the loss an Olympic Stadium in Manhattan with a plan for another in Queens in just days has rescued the bid and appears to make it stronger. Some IOC members may think the new plan is a last-minute patch that won't hold up. ATR's Ppwer Index says the change means better scores in bid operation, cost, public support, security and venue plans.

Paris (89, 86 previous) -- The IOC labeled "excellent" the accommodations plan for Paris, the only city to win that superlative, bumping up the Power Index for accommodation. The June 5 spectacle on the Champs Elysees demonstrated Paris's ability to stage mass promotions, a boost to the rating for bid operations and IOC praise for adhering to the recommendations of the Olympic Games Study Commission upped the Paris venue score."

17 days to go.

[Daffyd Pollard]

I'm sorry but the NY rating is pure rubbish. There is no way that the NY bid is seen as stronger now than if the stadium fiasco never happened...it's just impossible (and 6 points stronger at that!). The NY bid is obviously ATR's bid of choice, and they seem to be in denial about it standing absolutely no chance after the debacle. I think that Madrid should be higher too.

The closeness of Paris/London seems about right though.

[Robert Henson]

The IOC labeled "excellent" the accommodations plan for Paris, the only city to win that superlative,

Even though, like London and New York there are a lot more hotel rooms than required and yet they are still some $200 more expensive. Why?

[Borine]

The IOC labeled "excellent" the accommodations plan for Paris, the only city to win that superlative,

Even though, like London and New York there are a lot more hotel rooms than required and yet they are still some $200 more expensive. Why?

Excellent because Paris has an excellent  hotel capacity.Every summer Paris hosts millions of people from the whole world,we have more experience...Paris is the city which host the most events in the world (convention, exposition...)So the capacity must answer to the need.You say 200€ by night sorry but only the parisian palace present prices like that.There is smaller hotels which practise 15 € a night.

Please Robert Henson stop polemizing,it seemes you have never been in Paris..have you gone on the terrain and studied prices?No I don't presume to say that on London hotels prices...

[Robert Henson]

The hotel price guaruntees come from the EC report, not from me. And Paris had much higher hotel prices and about the same number of hotels as London and NYC. Why ATR has decided to put Paris higher than either of these cities is beyond me.

London = $290

Paris = $480

That is a huge, huge difference in guarunteed prices!

Excellent because Paris has an excellent  hotel capacity.Every summer Paris hosts millions of people from the whole world

You say this as though it doesn't apply to anywhere else!

[Mercator]

In fact Boring, I mean Borine: Paris's hotel rooms are more expensive according to the official documents. And the ATR evaluation says the following:

Accommodation: Quantity, quality and value for money.

"London, New York and Paris may have some of the world’s best hotels, but they are all expensive, while lower-priced accoms are rather ordinary. London and Paris don’t have the large hotels needed for major Olympics meetings. Madrid offers greater value but fewer rooms. Moscow offers fewer rooms and high rates."

[Michelle]

I completely reject this scoring... and lambast 'aroundtherings' as being bias.

It is pure nonsense to rate NYC so highly on 'public support' and for their score to go up on 'venue plans'... they have just changed to plan B, and their olympic stadium has no real legacy plans.

I am glad NYC is back in the running for 2012, but the score ATR gave them is not justified. Madrids score is a joke. They should be level, if not higher, than NYC.

[Borine]

Misinformation BOB...

the prices you quote are the price for the IOC...i don't see where is the problem,Paris is a beautiful city with a beautiful place,it is the Demand supply law,Paris is more visited than London in summer ,otherwise the innate value is higher in Paris than London for all the monuments.1800 rooms for the IOC in London....Paris has choice and more quality it is normal IOC pay more...

I thought at the beginning the prices was for everybody it is not the case...it is only for the IOC,visibly they don't care to pay more for more quality :grinning:

If the Games take place in Paris it will be for sure popular games,the cost of life in Paris is lower than London,for food and all products...what explains why a lot of British come live in France and buy house...It is cheaper in France than in Britain.

[troubles]

Misinformation BOB...

the prices you quote are the price for the IOC...i don't see where is the problem,Paris is a beautiful city with a beautiful place,it is the Demand supply law,Paris is more visited than London in summer ,otherwise the innate value is higher in Paris than London for all the monuments.1800 rooms for the IOC in London....Paris has choice and more quality it is normal IOC pay more...

I thought at the beginning the prices was for everybody it is not the case...it is only for the IOC,visibly they don't care to pay more for more quality :grinning:

If the Games take place in Paris it will be for sure popular games,the cost of life in Paris is lower than London,for food and all products...what explains why a lot of British come live in France and buy house...It is cheaper in France than in Britain.

Sorry to disappoint you Borine, but as a part of the Olympic Family with no choice on where to be accommodated, we would be looking more favourably at London for budget reasons (when you times the difference per night for 20 nights, it adds up to a hell of a lot.... enough to buy a house in France even)

[Ripley]

If the Games take place in Paris it will be for sure popular games,the cost of life in Paris is lower than London,for food and all products...what explains why a lot of British come live in France and buy house...It is cheaper in France than in Britain.

Thats because British people have more money and our economy is better...something that won't be lost on the IOC either.  :: French houses are very affordable for us! ....bad unemployment in France does have its perks for us British I suppose

[Michelle]

I think you will find the only reason the British get a second home in France is because the weather tends to be more pleasant, especially in the south.

[troubles]

course the drawback is I have my first home in france and can't afford a first, second, third home in the UK. A friend of mine has offered to sell me her garden shed in Essex,  but I think I might have a problem with planning permission if I want to extend it to a two-up two-down  :laughlong:

[zoltan]

The ONLY reason?

if it was the case, they would buy houses in spain, and not in france

perhaps they also appreciate the way of life, the food, the atmosphere, the culture....

ah no , I forgot, we are in a UK vs France debate, they hate each other. English can not appreciate the positive aspects of france and vice versa

[baron-pierreIV]

Boy this thread has really gotten bitchy, hasn't it.  Hey, it's not about your houses, guys.  It's the fact that NY, Paris and London are neck-in-neck leading up to July 6.

What?  Can't face the fact that NYC has bounced back?  Well, get real.

[Mercator]

There is a programme on UK TV, also shown on Flemish TV, called "A Place In The Sun" and it is about people from the UK who want to buy a second house in other countries.

Mainly these houses are in Italy, Portugal or Spain, but not often in France. European statistics show 39% of British people buy in Spain, 29% of people buy in France, 20% buy in Portugal and Italy and the remaining 12% buy in the rest of Europe: Ireland, Germany, Greece, etc...

83% of people are buying second homes, 17% are emigrating.

And reasons for emigration include a change of lifestyle, cheaper houses, health reasons (rheumatism, etc.) and better weather.

People do buy houses in Spain - in fact there is a village I know in Andalucía called Gaucín with 800 British families in it. The locals were getting worried about the exodus of people out if the village so they brought in some British estate agents to bring in more people who want to live there. I was horrified about the overtaking of a whole village, but in fact, as a Spanish man in the village told me, if it were not for the influx of people from outside, the village would have died! They estimate 600 jobs for local people were created through this.

And in this argument, I think it is wise to add that in the last three years, a nearly identical amount of French people have come to live in the UK. Main reason? Jobs.

[BSTOUT1221]

After a long break from GB, I come back and see that the same old ancient rivalries exist!   I am happy that NYC was able to salvage its 2012 bid and the time in which they turned it all around proves a LOT to me and to the IOC in terms of how the organizing committee would respond under pressure.  That does not mean they'll get the Games but I think NYC's reaction to the West Side stadium debacle was first rate and was much faster than any other candidate city has ever been able to organize a plan.  

they have just changed to plan B, and their olympic stadium has no real legacy plans.

Why do you say that?  ???

[Michelle]

Boy this thread has really gotten bitchy, hasn't it.  Hey, it's not about your houses, guys.  It's the fact that NY, Paris and London are neck-in-neck leading up to July 6.

What?  Can't face the fact that NYC has bounced back?  Well, get real.

We are being real.

[Michelle]

After a long break from GB, I come back and see that the same old ancient rivalries exist!   I am happy that NYC was able to salvage its 2012 bid and the time in which they turned it all around proves a LOT to me and to the IOC in terms of how the organizing committee would respond under pressure.  That does not mean they'll get the Games but I think NYC's reaction to the West Side stadium debacle was first rate and was much faster than any other candidate city has ever been able to organize a plan.  

they have just changed to plan B, and their olympic stadium has no real legacy plans.

Why do you say that?  ???

What does the stadium in NYC offer the Olympic movement? or Athletics?

The IOC wants stadiums with "life" after the games, as reported by the New York Times last week.

After the games, New York will decrease the size of the Mets stadium back to 50,000 and reconfigure it to a baseball stadium. Athletics will not feature at this stadium again. It will be like the Atlanta stadium of '96.

If New York has a legacy, I'm clearly not impressed, and I don't think the majority in the IOC will be either.

[Ripley]

I think you will find the only reason the British get a second home in France is because the weather tends to be more pleasant, especially in the south.

I think the weather is a big factor...however this trend has realy taken off as the economy and peoples' incomes have improved. Its also cultural...Brits like to invest in property...and with France being within relatively easy reach its a fairly safe bet. The low cost airlines are really opening up parts of France that were difficult to reach and are now virtually commutable.

[nykfan845]

After a long break from GB, I come back and see that the same old ancient rivalries exist!   I am happy that NYC was able to salvage its 2012 bid and the time in which they turned it all around proves a LOT to me and to the IOC in terms of how the organizing committee would respond under pressure.  That does not mean they'll get the Games but I think NYC's reaction to the West Side stadium debacle was first rate and was much faster than any other candidate city has ever been able to organize a plan.  

they have just changed to plan B, and their olympic stadium has no real legacy plans.

Why do you say that?  ???

What does the stadium in NYC offer the Olympic movement? or Athletics?

The IOC wants stadiums with "life" after the games, as reported by the New York Times last week.

After the games, New York will decrease the size of the Mets stadium back to 50,000 and reconfigure it to a baseball stadium. Athletics will not feature at this stadium again. It will be like the Atlanta stadium of '96.

If New York has a legacy, I'm clearly not impressed, and I don't think the majority in the IOC will be either.

Michelle, the legacy if the Games doesn't only involve the Stadium. There are other venues, you know.

[Michelle]

After a long break from GB, I come back and see that the same old ancient rivalries exist!   I am happy that NYC was able to salvage its 2012 bid and the time in which they turned it all around proves a LOT to me and to the IOC in terms of how the organizing committee would respond under pressure.  That does not mean they'll get the Games but I think NYC's reaction to the West Side stadium debacle was first rate and was much faster than any other candidate city has ever been able to organize a plan.  

they have just changed to plan B, and their olympic stadium has no real legacy plans.

Why do you say that?  ???

What does the stadium in NYC offer the Olympic movement? or Athletics?

The IOC wants stadiums with "life" after the games, as reported by the New York Times last week.

After the games, New York will decrease the size of the Mets stadium back to 50,000 and reconfigure it to a baseball stadium. Athletics will not feature at this stadium again. It will be like the Atlanta stadium of '96.

If New York has a legacy, I'm clearly not impressed, and I don't think the majority in the IOC will be either.

Michelle, the legacy if the Games doesn't only involve the Stadium. There are other venues, you know.

Of course there are other venues. But the IOC are looking for stadiums that have a life after the games. The Mets stadium will live on, but only for the sport of baseball. Paris' main stadium can host athletic events, and Londons future stadium will be an athletics stadium, to give UK Athletics a base.

NYC falls short.

[BSTOUT1221]

So the Stade de France can host track events after the Games - what else is there to host?   They've had the World Cup and the World Champs for Athletics - this would be the last major event at the stadium - so what's the "legacy" in that?

NYC's stadium (granted not as awesome as Plan A) will get usage after the Games for decades - sure the reconfig to baseball will make it a one sport stadium but what big events will Stade de France or Wembley be holding post-Games that require it to retain its track surface????

[Mercator]

So the Stade de France can host track events after the Games - what else is there to host?   They've had the World Cup and the World Champs for Athletics - this would be the last major event at the stadium - so what's the "legacy" in that?

NYC's stadium (granted not as awesome as Plan A) will get usage after the Games for decades - sure the reconfig to baseball will make it a one sport stadium but what big events will Stade de France or Wembley be holding post-Games that require it to retain its track surface????

Well the Stade de France and Wembley are used regularly for football finals, international rugby events (SDF = rugby union, Wembley = rugby league), large concerts, expositions, but Wembley will not be London's stadium for the Games. It'll be a new one, and it will probably get proper use as the UK's athletics venue, or turned over to a football team. Yes, it will probably be the last major event in there, except maybe some Champions League finals or the odd international event, but it'll never get the big ones in there again.

In any case, a new stadium is better than an old one - but I have had this funny feeling inside of me that Paris is, at some time really close to the decision date, going to announce a total renovation of its stadium, or some kind of transformation which will totally kill off anything the others have to offer. Thoughts, please?

[Robert Henson]

How much money is given to the stadium in the bid book. If it's more than seems necessary then perhaps. However, they can't change their plans now remember.

[SOlympiadsW]

well there is no question NYC's stadium is very practical, for it will be used as a permanent home for the Met's, which would be built ragrdless...it is the same deal as Atlanta's Olympic stadium, which IOC members have noted as a "successful legacy"....in fact I just saw a new report on this.....