Jump to content

Recommended Posts

London is hardly utopia for driving around, but it doesn't matter because people get places using public transport, not cars.

You deal with traffic by creating Games Lanes for athletes, VIPs and IOC members which piss off the public no end, but do the job for that select bunch that has to use the roads.

Really, when looking at transport the public transport offering is the thing that needs to be inspected most, because that's what will be carrying the crowds. And I suspect NYC tops nearly every US city in that regard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

if everyone in this thread just agrees to agree with you will you please stop? i'm not sure how many more pages of you posting the exact same post on the damn bus drivers getting lost we can take. i

Why do you like to repeat yourself multiple times? Its very annoying.

In sum....

As in 2012 when NY lost out to a city like Madrid

This is much easier said that done.

The standard way of an athletics to soccer stadium, is to dig down and lower the pitch, but that creates extra permanent seating and doesn't help the viewing angles either.

Take the Etihad Stadium in Manchester. The 38,000 seater, became a 48,000 seater soccer stadium, which would be way too big for the MLS.

Only the Sounders could sustain 38,000+ for an MLS franchise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know. Flushing Meadows has a very diverse population and their are many spanish people in that area. Depending on how well the MLS would do, I think they could sell out many games.

38,000+ ? A game I doubt it. The red bulls can't even get 80% capacity....

Link to post
Share on other sites

As in 2012 when NY lost out to a city like Madrid

That's being disingenuous & you know it. Madrid hasn't taken the prize either. And yet you're also on here trying to sell a refrigerator to Eskimos by touting the silly notion of Minneapolis.

2012 was a different race with different dynamics. NYC 2012 was a weak bid, & then to have their stadium deal fall apart a mere month before the final vote. Still too for the U.S. again. All the glamor capitals of Europe were also competing, with one of them being the clear favorite at the time. Vancouver 2010 also didn't do North America's chances for 2012 any favors either. In a future hypothetical, when geopolitics were on the U.S.' side, a good NYC bid would look very attractive to the IOC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's being disingenuous & you know it. Madrid hasn't taken the prize either. And yet you're also on here trying to sell a refrigerator to Eskimos by touting the silly notion of Minneapolis.

2012 was a different race with different dynamics. NYC 2012 was a weak bid, & then to have their stadium deal fall apart a mere month before the final vote. Still too for the U.S. again. All the glamor capitals of Europe were also competing, with one of them being the clear favorite at the time. Vancouver 2010 also didn't do North America's chances for 2012 any favors either. In a future hypothetical, when geopolitics were on the U.S.' side, a good NYC bid would look very attractive to the IOC.

I'm not touting any silly notion. As mentioned I simply think that there are people dismissing MSP without offering any alternative why they think another city could offer any more.

As for NYC v Toronto, I've not seen the NY2024 bid plan. They have no real stadium option except for some vague MLS suggestion, yet it is automatically stated that Toronto might as well not even bother turning up if NY is in the race. What is the basis for this silly notion?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure that AF was speaking hypothetically, cuz he didn't mention 2024. N dismissing Minneapolis is not a matter of what other city "could offer any more" (I can't see Minneapolis offering up anything more than anyone else could TBW). It's simply about putting out your hand. If one can't do that, then what's the point of even bidding. I'm sure the USOC, especially with the last 2 burns, aren't going to waste their time, money & efforts on a sub-par bid.

The only way I could remotely see Minneapolis somewhat competitive, is if they heavily invest on mass-trasit & accommodations which they would desperately need to host the demands of a 21st century Olympics. And I don't see them doing that. At least not as soon as 2024 (It would still be too much for a medium-sized metro area post-Games). They're still bickering as to how a proposed new Vikings stadium is going to be paid for, let alone & whole brand-spanking new Olympic Park & mass infrastructure. That's Y it's a silly notion. And besides, if Toronto is so great according to you, how can Minneapolis even compete with that! :rolleyes:

*Putting out your BEST hand/card.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure that AF was speaking hypothetically, cuz he didn't mention 2024. N dismissing Minneapolis is not a matter of what other city "could offer any more" (I can't see Minneapolis offering up anything more than anyone else could TBW). It's simply about putting out your hand. If one can't do that, then what's the point of even bidding. I'm sure the USOC, especially with the last 2 burns, aren't going to waste their time, money & efforts on a sub-par bid.

The only way I could remotely see Minneapolis somewhat competitive, is if they heavily invest on mass-trasit & accommodations which they would desperately need to host the demands of a 21st century Olympics. And I don't see them doing that. At least not as soon as 2024 (It would still be too much for a medium-sized metro area post-Games). They're still bickering as to how a proposed new Vikings stadium is going to be paid for, let alone & whole brand-spanking new Olympic Park & mass infrastructure. That's Y it's a silly notion. And besides, if Toronto is so great according to you, how can Minneapolis even compete with that! :rolleyes:

*Putting out your BEST hand/card.

I do wish people would keep up rather than using out of date information to try to bolster their comments

1) The Vikings Stadium has been APPROVED months ago and was signed by the Governor. Populous, AECOM, EwingCole, HKSInc and HTNB have submitted designs with the winner likely announced this week. The reason for the delay was not the will, it was arguments about which site was best.

2) The Hiawantha Line is built. The Central Corridor line is building and scheduled to open in 2014. The Southwest Corridor has been approved with a hoped for open date of 2018. There are several others before the planning committees irrespective of whether they bid for the 2024 games or not. At least 3 other lines have been mapped out and could be completed by 2022.

3) With the closure of the Twin Falls Assembly plant which had a direct train line into it, there is a 122acres of land ready for redevelopment right between St Pauls and Minneapolis and the proposed main sporting venues, already linked to the rail network and subject to pollution tests and environmental studies once buildings have been demolished, a potentially ideal location for an Olympic Village

Before you comment, the slightest bit of research might be advised rather than the attempt to pass of your opinions as facts

Link to post
Share on other sites

A future NYC bid will not be 2012 all over again.

Here we're the problems with 2012: It was way too soon for the US to host again. It was Europe's time. Nobody is going to win without a stadium plan.

Not one of those issues would be a problem in the scenario I described.

2024 won't be too soon for the US. If NYC were up against Toronto in the final (those were the terms of my hypothetical), they're both on the same continent so European geopolitics wouldn't be a factor (if anything Vancouver 2010 would hobble Toronto in comparison to NYC). NYC won't get the USOC's nod in the first place without a viable stadium plan.

So I stand by what I said: there is no way NYC loses to Toronto in a head-to-head. 2012 results would have no impact whatsoever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Crusader:

So what if Minneapolis may seem to have a lot of the physical aspects in play? It is a "C" city in a country/continent where there are at least 7 or 8 other viable, more attractive players. Zurich, Copenhagen, Dublin, Canberra are probably cities on the same stature as MSP, and at least 3 of those are national capitals,,,but no WAY are they Olympic material by any stretch of the imagination.

MSP is probably good for a YOGs or an IOC Session. Please stop being so foolish.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Crusader:

So what if Minneapolis may seem to have a lot of the physical aspects in play? It is a "C" city in a country/continent where there are at least 7 or 8 other viable, more attractive players. Zurich, Copenhagen, Dublin, Canberra are probably cities on the same stature as MSP, and at least 3 of those are national capitals,,,but no WAY are they Olympic material by any stretch of the imagination.

MSP is probably good for a YOGs or an IOC Session. Please stop being so foolish.

Yet you keep promoting the likes of San Francisco and also Chicago and NY who the IOC put over the knee and spanked their bottoms when it came to consider those bids.

The fact you quote Dublin, Canberra, Zurich makes me wonder if you have ever been outside of the USA when it comes to consider Olympic cities.

I agree. I don't think Toronto will even bid. It was a hypothetical that I think holds true for future Summer races until either the US or Canada wins.

Montreal beat LA to host the 1976 games

Link to post
Share on other sites

Montreal beat LA to host the 1976 games

That's largely because the IOC was trying to avoid Cold War entanglements. Montreal was the neutral choice. The Games have changed so much in scope since that decision was made that we'll be looking at a completely different playing field when it comes to the next North American Games.

And do you really want to cite MONTREAL as an argument for why Toronto would win over NYC??

I just have to say that Crusader's tone is starting to remind me a bit of a certain "boy" and a certain "sheep" -- both of whom have departed our little community. Same attitude, same writing style, same focus on venue details, same interest in the same threads.... Curiouser and curiouser.....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. I don't think Toronto will even bid. It was a hypothetical that I think holds true for future Summer races until either the US or Canada wins.

We will find out in March if Toronto will bid.

I think 96 was the last time both bid together? So if they bid together maybe one wins maybe that should be the strategy for both countries to help one another :lol:

(Just random gibberish, don't take it seriously)/

Edited by intoronto1125
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's largely because the IOC was trying to avoid Cold War entanglements. Montreal was the neutral choice. The Games have changed so much in scope since that decision was made that we'll be looking at a completely different playing field when it comes to the next North American Games.

And do you really want to cite MONTREAL as an argument for why Toronto would win over NYC??

I just have to say that Crusader's tone is starting to remind me a bit of a certain "boy" and a certain "sheep" -- both of whom have departed our little community. Same attitude, same writing style, same focus on venue details, same interest in the same threads.... Curiouser and curiouser.....

Interesting

Yet they immediately gave the games to Moscow in 1980 and then LA in 1984 ...... so much for avoiding cold war entanglements. Sounds like a bit of a feeble excuse to me, especially as Moscow led after Round1

Look at these pages, you seem to have a common approach to making accusations against other members who disagree with you.

1. I believe it was Sir Rols who raised the recent issue of MSP2024, when he provided the news story about the kid who created a Twin Cities 2004 olympic bid

2. Venue details are something which are measurable as are things like transportation. I am not so arrogant to even remotely claim to know the minds of IOC members and those 'additional qualities' some on here think they can desern after looking into their crystal balls. And I think you'll find I have not made many comments about venues or infrastructure, simply corrected people's inaccurate information with readily available facts.

3. Same interest in the same threads - you mean the threads which are the most popular and are the front page of the future bids discussion section .... is that all you have, that I comment on the most popular threads? Laughable

I believe you suggested that Baron Pierre was Shrek201 at one point and I'm only new. I should be honoured to be held in such illustrious company.

Curiouser and curiouser.....

We will find out in March if Toronto will bid.

I think 96 was the last time both bid together? So if they bid together maybe one wins maybe that should be the strategy for both countries to help one another :lol:

(Just random gibberish, don't take it seriously)/

At least Toronto actually have an official group looking at it seriously

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. I find the above HYSTERICAL! (I'm sure Baron and Shrek do too!) As if anyone other than Kernowsheep would've responded that way! Crusader wasn't even a member during the Baron/Shrek season.

So, CruKernowSheep....

I think you'll find the IOC had no choice but to wade into the Cold War in 1980 because Moscow and LA were the only cities to bid. They tried to keep things as even as possible by following Moscow with LA. It was a miserable situation and the boycotts made matters worse, but the IOC handled it as diplomatically as possible -- beginning with Montreal '76.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. I find the above HYSTERICAL! (I'm sure Baron and Shrek do too!) As if anyone other than Kernowsheep would've responded that way! Crusader wasn't even a member during the Baron/Shrek season.

So, CruKernowSheep....

I think you'll find the IOC had no choice but to wade into the Cold War in 1980 because Moscow and LA were the only cities to bid. They tried to keep things as even as possible by following Moscow with LA. It was a miserable situation and the boycotts made matters worse, but the IOC handled it as diplomatically as possible -- beginning with Montreal '76.

So the accusation is that I can read ... and before I have commented on a thread, I have looked at previous pages, just to make sure any comments I plan to make have not been made previously ..

Is that it, is that all you've got?

I take any comment you ever write on these threads with a massive pinch of salt if that passes for what you regard as serious comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a confession to make:

Quaker and I are the same person. Yes, it's true. I've been staging phony spats with myself to keep you all off the scent, but I feel it's time to finally drop the charade.

Kidding, of course. Peace, Quaker.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then it will be a struggle to make it an MLS stadium unless they take the expensive step of moving the stands closer to the pitch

MLS plans to fund the 300 million stadium privately. If the olympics are in NYC then the USOC will have to pay for the renovations, but that's still much less money then building a whole new stadium.

I have a confession to make:

Quaker and I are the same person. Yes, it's true. I've been staging phony spats with myself to keep you all off the scent, but I feel it's time to finally drop the charade.

Kidding, of course. Peace, Quaker.

Wait. Are you joking?

Link to post
Share on other sites

MLS plans to fund the 300 million stadium privately. If the olympics are in NYC then the USOC will have to pay for the renovations, but that's still much less money then building a whole new stadium.

But if capacity is only 25k, that's a crazy amount of "renovating." They'd basically have to more than triple the capacity (can't see less than 80k, really). That just doesn't make sense.

Wait. Are you joking?

I'll never tell....

Mwhaaahahahaha.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...