Jump to content

The American Race


Recommended Posts

We all know that if NYC puts together another strong bid, they are virtually guaraenteed at least one more shot, but I think it might be interesting to see what other American cities bid. We might see the next USA SOG host after NYC come out of these cities.

The cities that have shown interest, according to GamesBids, are (Besides NYC):

San Francisco, CA

Baltimore, MD

Chicago, IL

Houston, TX

Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN

Philadelphia, PA

San Diego, CA/Tijuana, Mexico

Cities that bid for 2012, but got cut (If not listed above):

Cincinnati, OH

Dallas, TX

Los Angeles, CA

Pittsburgh, PA

Tampa, FL

Washington, DC

Other Cities I think might show some interest (Maybe?):

Miami, FL

Detroit, MI

Seattle, WA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 425
  • Created
  • Last Reply
if NYC bids they do have th upper hand

So, in other words -- it'll just be the same as 2-3 years ago, except for the entry of Chicago.  And just as I will suspect, of course, NYC will still be the best bid remaining.  But the USOC will use the other cities just to light the fire under NYC's chair -- so to speak.  It's this childish game that I detest.  I mean if NYC is really interested, it can step up to the plate w/o the USOC having to use other cities as mere throw-away pawns.  

ANd if the other cities play the game, it's their own stupid fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ryan04

So, in other words -- it'll just be the same as 2-3 years ago, except for the entry of Chicago.  And just as I will suspect, of course, NYC will still be the best bid remaining.  But the USOC will use the other cities just to light the fire under NYC's chair -- so to speak.  It's this childish game that I detest.  I mean if NYC is really interested, it can step up to the plate w/o the USOC having to use other cities as mere throw-away pawns.  

ANd if the other cities play the game, it's their own stupid fault.

agreed, the USOC is really going to let thier 2016/2007 Contest (if NYC runs) to give NYC a little he!!, so that they can deal with it again come 2007-2009

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If and when NYC decides to bid again this time around, with the USOC opening up the competition, it will just make NYC a lot stronger coming out of this field. Now, if SFO or CHI doesn't come up with something that is a lot better than what NYC last proposed for 2012, it will still be NYC. If Chicago, or San Francisco proposes to massively build complexes and other facilities that needs some type of approval or a lot of money, that'll be a hard sell for them against NYC.

Most of NYC's 2012 proposed venues are already in the works. Plus, if you're going to complain that NYC doesn't have their stadium in Manhattan or near the famous skyline, you're completely presenting a moot point. Technology will definitely be used for the Games. In fact, I'm currently watching the Yankee game today and it's so amazing how a blimp can cover a very wide area. Their showing live videos from all over the City, GWB, Giants Stadium, NYC Skyline from the Bronx with Yankee Stadium in the foreground. The Olympic Park Complex in Flushing Meadows is less than 7 miles from the Times Square, and that's not a far distance to cover. Flushing Meadows Park is also 1 train ride to Times Square (#7, Times Square-Flushing Main St line).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's great that Chicago can push NYC.  But this will be the first time Chicago will try to get a formal Olympic act together; New York only needs a little tweaking.  Can Chicago's bid REALISTICALLY better New York's AND WIN INTERNATIONALLY as well?  

See, New York to its credit has 1 failed attempt.  No matter what anyone says; that counts for something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as several others have already said in this thread the USOC will use the 2016 USOC race to really put some fire under NYC to improve their already pretty strong bid that combined with the fact that they already defeated most of the USA cities that will bid again for 2012 should prove successful for both NYC and the USOC....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but if Chicago shows off their complex transport system, already existing venues, public support, and the HUGE expansion of O'Hare, I think that Chicago could have the upper hand.

Why else would the USOC open the race, if not to look at a new city.

Yes, shows off their complex transport system, 2nd to NYC. Already existing venues, also 2nd to NYC. Public support, you could very well have an advantage here, but  you can't deny most New Yorkers are more favorable to a 2016 bid than 2012. O'Hare, yes, the largest in the Country, but NYC's airports combined are #1 in the country, expecting more than 105 million passengers this year with the new AA Terminal in JFK and the new Terminal 3 in Newak Airport with an estimated 25 million passengers to pass through in that terminal alone.

Plus, Chicago has a $5 Billion budget... NYC has a $4 Billion surplus, and is expecting the same for the next year.

NYC has an attempt in its belt. If NYC tries to bid again, it will definitely be considered as the City to beat, as it is the bid the USOC put forward to the IOC for 2012. Sure, the USOC opened the bidding process again, but why? You think they'll abandon the Greatest City in America for a "Third City"? Do you think the IOC will salivate on a Chicago Olympics? I don't think so. The IOC is all about image, and NYC will give them what they really want, money and a high profile city with their games being held.

The British Olympic Committee learned the lesson of not putting its best City forward, that's why they've bid with London, and they won. Unless, the USOC try to put forward the best city in the mix, I'm afraid the IOC will try to pass again on the USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the USOC has changed.  At least I hope so.  And if that's the case I dont think that NYC is an automatic winner if they even decide to bid.

The 2012 election told a story that the IOC has changed.  They seem to be voting with their heads and choosing plans that will make for a great event.

Having said that, an NYC2016 without the Manhattan stadium is not a great plan.  If they stick with the Mets Stadium plan they will not win.

Any bid that can come up with a great Olympic Park plan with an athletes village, stadium and other venues in a close cluster will have a strong advantage.

I think the USOC has realized its mistake and is now ready to choose a bid that makes sense,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the USOC has changed.  At least I hope so.  And if that's the case I dont think that NYC is an automatic winner if they even decide to bid.

The 2012 election told a story that the IOC has changed.  They seem to be voting with their heads and choosing plans that will make for a great event.

Having said that, an NYC2016 without the Manhattan stadium is not a great plan.  If they stick with the Mets Stadium plan they will not win.

Any bid that can come up with a great Olympic Park plan with an athletes village, stadium and other venues in a close cluster will have a strong advantage.

I think the USOC has realized its mistake and is now ready to choose a bid that makes sense,

But the Manhattan stadium was NOT in a cluster.  It merely provided an expansion of the Jacob Javits Center.

The stadium's location in Queens will merge it with the Tennis Center and the rowing sites in Flushing Meadows, and providing the Olympic Village also stays in Queens, brings it closer to that as well.

The USOC is dreaming if they can find at least 110 acres or so of prime land in a major US city that can accommodate a new Olympic stadium, the Village and 2 or 3 other stadia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if NYC bids they do have th upper hand

So, in other words -- it'll just be the same as 2-3 years ago, except for the entry of Chicago.  And just as I will suspect, of course, NYC will still be the best bid remaining.  But the USOC will use the other cities just to light the fire under NYC's chair -- so to speak.  It's this childish game that I detest.  I mean if NYC is really interested, it can step up to the plate w/o the USOC having to use other cities as mere throw-away pawns.  

ANd if the other cities play the game, it's their own stupid fault.

Oh come on, that's just being ignorant and show offish.

Everyone here is saying that they are not bias to NYC, but just look at this thread. Think about, NYC just might not announce a bid, but that seems to be going over everyones head.

Maybe,just maybe, NYC might not bid.

And if NYC bids, it is not automatic. Chicago could sweep NYC off it's feet. I mean look at yourselves, your starting to act like Paris in 2012, and that's not what NYC needs to win a bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the USOC has changed.  At least I hope so.  And if that's the case I dont think that NYC is an automatic winner if they even decide to bid.

The 2012 election told a story that the IOC has changed.  They seem to be voting with their heads and choosing plans that will make for a great event.

Having said that, an NYC2016 without the Manhattan stadium is not a great plan.  If they stick with the Mets Stadium plan they will not win.

Any bid that can come up with a great Olympic Park plan with an athletes village, stadium and other venues in a close cluster will have a strong advantage.

I think the USOC has realized its mistake and is now ready to choose a bid that makes sense,

But the Manhattan stadium was NOT in a cluster.  It merely provided an expansion of the Jacob Javits Center.

The stadium's location in Queens will merge it with the Tennis Center and the rowing sites in Flushing Meadows, and providing the Olympic Village also stays in Queens, brings it closer to that as well.

The USOC is dreaming if they can find at least 110 acres or so of prime land in a major US city that can accommodate a new Olympic stadium, the Village and 2 or 3 other stadia.

Of course it wasn't a cluster.

But why does it have to be "prime land"?  London found a perfect area - away from the city centre and in an area in desperate need of regeneration.

I could see that happening in Chicago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the USOC has changed.  At least I hope so.  And if that's the case I dont think that NYC is an automatic winner if they even decide to bid.

The 2012 election told a story that the IOC has changed.  They seem to be voting with their heads and choosing plans that will make for a great event.

Having said that, an NYC2016 without the Manhattan stadium is not a great plan.  If they stick with the Mets Stadium plan they will not win.

Any bid that can come up with a great Olympic Park plan with an athletes village, stadium and other venues in a close cluster will have a strong advantage.

I think the USOC has realized its mistake and is now ready to choose a bid that makes sense,

But the Manhattan stadium was NOT in a cluster.  It merely provided an expansion of the Jacob Javits Center.

The stadium's location in Queens will merge it with the Tennis Center and the rowing sites in Flushing Meadows, and providing the Olympic Village also stays in Queens, brings it closer to that as well.

The USOC is dreaming if they can find at least 110 acres or so of prime land in a major US city that can accommodate a new Olympic stadium, the Village and 2 or 3 other stadia.

Of course it wasn't a cluster.

But why does it have to be "prime land"?  London found a perfect area - away from the city centre and in an area in desperate need of regeneration.

I could see that happening in Chicago.

Especially with the South Side or Marina City, both only about 5 minutes away from the city centre by CTA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if NYC bids they do have th upper hand

So, in other words -- it'll just be the same as 2-3 years ago, except for the entry of Chicago.  And just as I will suspect, of course, NYC will still be the best bid remaining.  But the USOC will use the other cities just to light the fire under NYC's chair -- so to speak.  It's this childish game that I detest.  I mean if NYC is really interested, it can step up to the plate w/o the USOC having to use other cities as mere throw-away pawns.  

ANd if the other cities play the game, it's their own stupid fault.

Oh come on, that's just being ignorant and show offish.

Everyone here is saying that they are not bias to NYC, but just look at this thread. Think about, NYC just might not announce a bid, but that seems to be going over everyones head.

Maybe,just maybe, NYC might not bid.

And if NYC bids, it is not automatic. Chicago could sweep NYC off it's feet. I mean look at yourselves, your starting to act like Paris in 2012, and that's not what NYC needs to win a bid.

hahaha you are calling some of the people mentioning NYC as a serious contender for 2016 as Paris...meanwhile you go and say Chicago will sweep everyone off their feet.....what a joke...

we haven't even seen Chicago's bid and really can't go making these random guesses and saying the bid will be the storngest....at least not at this time

and Chicagofan if I were you I too would hope NYC doesn't bid, but unfortunately it most likely will....and as Baron said NONE of the prospective USA cities seem to be as compact as NYC, with what we know to this point....

and GBMod to say NYC will lose if the stadium isn't moved back to Manhatten is just flat out ridiculous....especially considering the stadium is DEAD in that area....it is ridiculous there just is no reason why NYC's stadium has to be in Manhatten especially when there is a non-controversial and a location which fits perfectly into a compact bid....I believe if they were to maybe redo the design on the proposed Queens Stadium they will be fine...for anything another promised Manhatten stadium would scare people off and kill the bid...

NYC isn't autmoatically going to win this race if they bid....and NO one is implying that....however they will be a very strong contender....there is a big difference in the two...and as much as some like to link those two statemnts as the same and dismiss them that just isn't the case....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the USOC has changed.  At least I hope so.  And if that's the case I dont think that NYC is an automatic winner if they even decide to bid.

The 2012 election told a story that the IOC has changed.  They seem to be voting with their heads and choosing plans that will make for a great event.

Having said that, an NYC2016 without the Manhattan stadium is not a great plan.  If they stick with the Mets Stadium plan they will not win.

Any bid that can come up with a great Olympic Park plan with an athletes village, stadium and other venues in a close cluster will have a strong advantage.

I think the USOC has realized its mistake and is now ready to choose a bid that makes sense,

You've just made my point Mr Moderator. The USOC chose NYC in 2002 because they're expecting it will be a big battle between great world cities for 2012. With NYC coming out bloodied and changing their plan in the last minute, I think made it stronger than it's previous win with the USOC in 2002 by putting the Olympic Stadium in the Olympic Park.

NYC has an Olympic Park existing in its 2012 plan. The Flushing Meadows Complex has tennis, some water events, athletics, football finals, the IBC, and you can add more events with facilities needing renovation or some to be built in there. It's already a big cluster of venues in one giant park.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the USOC has changed.  At least I hope so.  And if that's the case I dont think that NYC is an automatic winner if they even decide to bid.

The 2012 election told a story that the IOC has changed.  They seem to be voting with their heads and choosing plans that will make for a great event.

Having said that, an NYC2016 without the Manhattan stadium is not a great plan.  If they stick with the Mets Stadium plan they will not win.

Any bid that can come up with a great Olympic Park plan with an athletes village, stadium and other venues in a close cluster will have a strong advantage.

I think the USOC has realized its mistake and is now ready to choose a bid that makes sense,

But the Manhattan stadium was NOT in a cluster.  It merely provided an expansion of the Jacob Javits Center.

The stadium's location in Queens will merge it with the Tennis Center and the rowing sites in Flushing Meadows, and providing the Olympic Village also stays in Queens, brings it closer to that as well.

The USOC is dreaming if they can find at least 110 acres or so of prime land in a major US city that can accommodate a new Olympic stadium, the Village and 2 or 3 other stadia.

Of course it wasn't a cluster.

But why does it have to be "prime land"?  London found a perfect area - away from the city centre and in an area in desperate need of regeneration.

I could see that happening in Chicago.

So rebuilding the Willets Point area which is needing revitalization, just like London's plan, won't work for NYC? I totally disagree with that. If you'll go to Willets Point, you'll see how dead the area is. Building the new "Shea" in there and adding more facilities will make that place better. Of course, it won't have the pizzaz of Manhattan, but at least, it will regenerate the area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if NYC bids they do have th upper hand

So, in other words -- it'll just be the same as 2-3 years ago, except for the entry of Chicago.  And just as I will suspect, of course, NYC will still be the best bid remaining.  But the USOC will use the other cities just to light the fire under NYC's chair -- so to speak.  It's this childish game that I detest.  I mean if NYC is really interested, it can step up to the plate w/o the USOC having to use other cities as mere throw-away pawns.  

ANd if the other cities play the game, it's their own stupid fault.

Oh come on, that's just being ignorant and show offish.

Everyone here is saying that they are not bias to NYC, but just look at this thread. Think about, NYC just might not announce a bid, but that seems to be going over everyones head.

Maybe,just maybe, NYC might not bid.

And if NYC bids, it is not automatic. Chicago could sweep NYC off it's feet. I mean look at yourselves, your starting to act like Paris in 2012, and that's not what NYC needs to win a bid.

Again, we're not saying Chicago can't beat NYC. But, if everything stays in place, NYC bids with its 2012 plan, and Chicago can't offer a better alternative and starts to propose big construction somewhere in the City, NYC's image and potential will win out the USOC. Chicago has to show something better than constructing a multibillion olympic park. It worked with London because it is a World City, a World Capital, and a Financial Capital in Europe. Chicago, IMO, doesn't have that status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Especially with the South Side or Marina City, both only about 5 minutes away from the city centre by CTA

Is there enough empty land there to form an impressive Olympic competition venue nerve center?  And can they build on it?

Yes - there is a lot of land withing about 5-10 minutes from Soldier Field.  Besides the land along the Chicago River near Marina City they have also torn down a lot of the old housing projects on the South Side near Comiskey (I will NEVER call it Cellular One Field  :angry: ) so there is land available.

As for competition venues, Meigs is essentially an empty island right now, perfect for temporary venues.

New York is the favorite, no doubt about it.  And they have experience in bidding so they can learn from their mistakes.  But watch out for Chicago - the city pulled a Barcelona and transformed itself over the past 20 years.  Expect something exciting in their bid.   :unclesam:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF New York is going to bid again, they can spin the Manhattan stadium spectre in that that was a solo venue there.  That after much thought, the Queens site is better (which I have thought all along).   Anybody can make that spin work.  The timing was off in the last bid in that there wasn't enough time to mitigate that last-minute turn of events.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Especially with the South Side or Marina City, both only about 5 minutes away from the city centre by CTA

Is there enough empty land there to form an impressive Olympic competition venue nerve center?  And can they build on it?

Yes - there is a lot of land withing about 5-10 minutes from Soldier Field.  Besides the land along the Chicago River near Marina City they have also torn down a lot of the old housing projects on the South Side near Comiskey (I will NEVER call it Cellular One Field  :angry: ) so there is land available.

As for competition venues, Meigs is essentially an empty island right now, perfect for temporary venues.

New York is the favorite, no doubt about it.  And they have experience in bidding so they can learn from their mistakes.  But watch out for Chicago - the city pulled a Barcelona and transformed itself over the past 20 years.  Expect something exciting in their bid.   :unclesam:

Oh no doubt about Chicago could very well beat NYC on this one, but... they have to propose something that's going to blow NYC out of the water. NYC has everything going for it this time, if it plays it well. I'm not belittling Chicago, but I'm afraid, if NYC bids and sticks with its current plan, or furthermore improve whatever they need to improve to it, Chicago won't win.

Everybody says, well, London beat out Paris. Paris beat itself out by being so overconfident, coupled by a great London surge to the top. People just can't say, Chicago can do in the 2016 USOC race what London did in the 2012 IOC race, if supporters will just say Chicago can beat NYC. They have to offer something that's going to blow away NYC and its plan. And from what I've seen so far, I don't think so. We'll see and wait until all the bids are formally submitted and we'll go from there.

Oh by the way, NYC didn't pull a Barcelona like what Chicago did for 20 years. NYC did a comeback, only NYC can. NYC was in the worst fiscal crisis in the 70's and 80's almost filing for bankruptcy, the worst crime in the USA, and worst terrorist attack seen in the Continental USA, NYC came back and it's roaring right now. New facilities being built, parks, highways, stadiums etc, you name it. NYC is rebuilding and losing 2012 wont' deter the City from going on. Having the 2016 Summer Games would be a cap to all the strides NYC has made the past 30 years! And all the more the USOC and IOC would want NYC to host a games because of the potential money to be earned, legacy to the City, and the high profile image it can give to olympic sports programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...