Jump to content

NYC 2024 or 2028


Soaring
 Share

Recommended Posts

I know the chances for Seattle hosting are slim to none. But if it ever could be achieved, I would prefer Seattle over Houston, Philly, Miami, Minneapolis, or any of those other 3rd tiers.

I think at this point Chicago or NYC really would be the most viable in terms of pulling it together for a SOG, but again the will power of these cities is questionable to say the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OV on the Jersey side of what?

On the Jersey side of things. If the Giants stadium in the Meadowlands is going to be used, say as the Olympic Stadium, and there is a lot of undeveloped land around there, that's the only viable land I see for an Olympic Village. SO might as well make it close to the Meadowlands complex.

And don't tell me it's on the NJ side of things. I had a solution to that. Refer to my previous posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the Jersey side of things. If the Giants stadium in the Meadowlands is going to be used, say as the Olympic Stadium, and there is a lot of undeveloped land around there, that's the only viable land I see for an Olympic Village. SO might as well make it close to the Meadowlands complex.

And don't tell me it's on the NJ side of things. I had a solution to that. Refer to my previous posts.

I would share *nothing* with New Jersey. That's would be like South Korea sharing the games with North Korea!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the chances for Seattle hosting are slim to none. But if it ever could be achieved, I would prefer Seattle over Houston, Philly, Miami, Minneapolis, or any of those other 3rd tiers.

I think at this point Chicago or NYC really would be the most viable in terms of pulling it together for a SOG, but again the will power of these cities is questionable to say the least.

I hear you and I agree in terms of personal preference. I just think Houston, Philly and Miami are feasible and Seattle isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear you and I agree in terms of personal preference. I just think Houston, Philly and Miami are feasible and Seattle isn't.

I agree that they can be seen as more "feasible" than Seattle, but my preference remains the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Have you ever tried going to downtown Seattle on a Saturday night? :rolleyes:

Back in 1990, they couldn't even host the entire Goodwill Games back then. They had to share it with Tacoma (which it would be in any future OG) PLUS as far away as Spokane...because that's where we ended up going just to see the Women's Indoor Volleyball. It's too small, congested and rainy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, with rain.

When was the last time you were in Seattle? In the Summer? And do you have any close friends who are born and bred Seattlites?

Because I do.

Have you ever tried going to downtown Seattle on a Saturday night? :rolleyes:

Back in 1990, they couldn't even host the entire Goodwill Games back then. They had to share it with Tacoma (which it would be in any future OG) PLUS as far away as Spokane...because that's where we ended up going just to see the Women's Indoor Volleyball. It's too small, congested and rainy.

Baron-

The San Francisco 2016 plan had a surprising number of events within the city's 7x7, 49 Square Miles. If SFO could probably do it, Seattle could too.

And San Francisco would deal with it's infamous fog, so six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When was the last time you were in Seattle? In the Summer? And do you have any close friends who are born and bred Seattlites?

Because I do.

Alright there sparky...

Don't really understand the point, if any, you're trying to make...

My comment was more out of jest, than a serious comment. As, London, well known for rain is hosting 2012.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seriously doubt that La Guardia will be closed anytime soon - the rich businessmen in Manhattan will never let that happen as they prefer LGA over Newark and JFK.

Unless they are flying to LAX/SFO, in which case, JFK is their only choice if they want a non-stop and if they want three class service (First/Business/Coach).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless they are flying to LAX/SFO, in which case, JFK is their only choice if they want a non-stop and if they want three class service (First/Business/Coach).

I am well aware of the perimeter rule at LGA but numbers clearly show that the majority of O&D passengers to and from Manhattan prefer to use LGA over JFK and EWR. Either way, LGA will never be torn down - for the simple matter that doing so would but further strain on EWR and JFK, which are already horribly congested as is. You are correct though if they want non-stop to the west coast or Internationally then they have to use JFK or EWR. Trust me, you are not the only aviation buff on GamesBids :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really close to a much smaller airport than a major one. My flight options from the smaller one are that I would have to connect 90% of the time no matter where I go. The major one has mega non-stop options.

Personally, if it's a matter of convenience (& sanity), I much rather use the smaller airport that's very close to me, even though I'd most certainly have to connect somewhere else, versus using the major one with many non-stop flights that's over an hour away, & that's with no traffic.

I'd rather sit my a$s down at an airport lounge reading a book, having lunch or make a phone call or whatever for 60-90 minutes while I wait for my connection versus driving well over an hour to the major airport & wrestling with traffic (& if there's heavy traffic/incident, forget it. And not to mention the longer lines at the major airport) & risk missing my flight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My experience with Midway Airport in Chicago is most definitely better in terms of delays compared to O'Hare, but since both have an decent public transit to them (Blue and Orange line trains), it doesn't matter too much.

I usually fly out of Midway for domestic flights, and use O'Hare for international.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Venue plan for a Summer Olympics in New York City

Ceremonies: New Olympic Stadium

Archery: new venue

Diving: new venue

Swimming: new venue

Synchronised Swimming: new venue

Water Polo: new venue

Athletics: New Olympic Stadium

Badminton: New Convention Centre

Basketball: Brooklyn Arena - 18,000

Boxing: Nassau Coliseum - 17,500

Canoe/Kayak Sprint: New Flushing Meadows Rowing Basin

Canoe/Kayak Slalom: undetermined venue

BMX: Staten Island

Mountain Biking: Staten Island

Road Cycling: Staten island

Track Cycling: new venue

Equestrian: new venue

Fencing: New Convention Centre

Field Hockey: undetermined venue

Football: Meadowlands Stadium - 82,566

Golf: undetermined venue

Artistic Gymnastics: Madison Square Garden - 21,000

Rhythmic Gymnastics: Madison Square Garden - 21,000

Trampolining: Madison Square Garden - 21,000

Handball: Newark Arena - 18,500

Judo: New Convention Centre

Modern Pentathlon: undetermined venue

Rowing: New Flushing Meadows Rowing Basin

Rugby 7s: undetermined venue

Sailing: undetermined venue

Shooting: new venue

Table Tennis: New Convention Centre

Taekwondo: New Convention Centre

Tennis: USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center - 22,527, 10,200, 6,000

Triathlon: Central Park

Beach Volleyball: new venue

Indoor Volleyball: Meadowlands Arena - 20,000

Weightlifting: New Convention Centre

Wrestling: New Convention Centre

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2024 may be pushing it, but 2028 definitely has potential.

The biggest question is the leadership. In which city will a group of smart, charismatic organizers emerge? That is by far the most important criteria in determining whether or not a bid gets off the ground and whether it has a legitimate shot at winning. Yes, the venues are a significant issue and NYC has a big hill to climb in terms of a stadium and the village. Still, the leadership is more important. If capable people don't have a strong will to stage the Olympics, then it's game over.

The leadership might surface in NYC or it might show up in Chicago or San Francisco (the most dubious IMO). L.A. has the ever persevering SCCOG which, though it doesn't constitute bid leadership, does maintain consistent Olympic momentum, which is an asset. Any of those cities could stage great Games. I strongly believe the leadership will be the biggest determining factor in deciding which one steps up to the plate.

(Incidentally, it has recently occurred to me that one of the potential legacies of an L.A. Games would be mass transportation. L.A. is a city badly in need of improved mass transportation and that could be a selling point both to locals and to the IOC.)

One of the things Chicago 2016 revealed about the bid process is that the bid must not only be technically superior, it must tell a story. It must have some kind of hook. That central vision is the most important thing that the bid leaders must develop. Chicago failed to do so. They put forward a plan and said "we want the Games." Not good enough. Rio said, "We are a rising economic power and our continent has NEVER hosted." Madrid said, "We have demonstrated consistent passion for the Olympic movement, passion symbolized by the dedicated service of Juan Antonio Samaranch. Honor his legacy and our national enthusiasm for the Games." Those were the only two stories that emerged from the bid. Consequently, those two duked it out in the final.

Whether it is NYC or any other city, the next American bid must tell a compelling story. The leadership of that bid must figure out what that story is and communicate it powerfully.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the things Chicago 2016 revealed about the bid process is that the bid must not only be technically superior, it must tell a story. It must have some kind of hook.

Really good point Athensfan. It's a factor I've started to believe more and more in, especially after reading Mike Lee's account of the London bid. As he made clear, London knew it could mount a bid technically competitive against any other. But it needed that "story" to differentiate from the others. And so was born London's focus on "Youth" and engaging the young in the future of the games and sports. And watching how London has painstakingly integrated this all the way through its preparations now, I've been impressed how they really took it on as the core value of their games.

I think the need for a story or hook is going to get more important as inevitably more and more past hosts start to bid again. It's not enough any more to pledge an "Athlete's Games" or "Green Games" (unless prospective hosts can really take such cliches to another level) - most candidate cities now pledge varying degrees of those.

Maybe a suggestion for New York could be to downplay the American-ness and pitch itself as the "World's City", and pledge to bring the games to the most international city in the world? Preach internationalism rather than Manhattan, Broadway and Lady Liberty.

That's assuming, of course, New Yorkers will ever be interested in bidding down the track.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree Athens, Chicago 2016 did not tell a compelling story, even though they tried.

They could have taped into the uniqueness of a truly "Urban Olympics" with regeneration of the south and west sides of the city at the core of the theme. They could have focused more on the city's African heritage, being that the first settler was of African descent, former slaves arrived into the city for new opportunities, and of course the hometown of the first African American president. They should have pushed youth sport even further, although the creation of World Sport Chicago was a step in the right direction.

We could have told a more compelling story about our immigrant heritage, and how we are a city of the world, and how everyone will find a piece of their home here.

Their venues should have been more interesting, especially since we have amazing architects in this city. Accessibility could have also been showcased in a better way. Public transit improvements should have also played a greater role in the bid plan.

Overall, Chicago 2016 played it safe. I think this was in partly due to the economy, and not taking the risk of over promising, especially with the critical eyes of the opposition.

All in all, I think we did the best that we could have done in hindsight. It is rare for cities to win on their first bid in quite some time, so hopefully we are fortunate enough to have the opportunity once more, but it really is dependent on future leadership in the city.

If Chicago can't host, my support goes to NYC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...