Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Boston, Massachusetts is taking the first big steps towards looking into the feasibility of a Summer Games bid for the earliest year 2024. On Thursday, January 10, 2013, the MA State Senate file a Re

Oslo was an abortion - Boston is a miscarriage.

We prefer "Masshole" to "total douche".

Oh wow! I have lived for almost 2 years in Paris and only been once in la Defense. It's insane to think about how much this area changed since the 60's. Now it's the business area, with skycrapers (it's not allowed to build towers over 40m high within Paris), slighly outside Paris. The Parsian's city (London) or Manhattan (NYC). You can see it from far, since it's the only place where you can have skycrapers. They are building lots of new skycrapers there. By 2020, there will be twin towers there, higher than the eiffel tower.

Tour-Hermitage.jpg

Those twin towers kind of look like Olympic torches, don't you think? ;)

Just got back from Paris...the La Defense is the most hideous collection of buildings I have ever seen...NYC, Chicago, and other US cities have much nicer skylines than that of La Defense. Paris itself is really the only beautiful part of the city and metro...Versailles is like this strange Paris wannabe. And if you are just slightly outside the main city limits it's all welcome to **** village.

Seriously though...stop calling those hideous buildings beautiful. They are sheer crap.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Inspire a Generation" - London 2012

"One World, One Dream" - Beijing 2008

"With Glowing Hearts" - Vancouver 2010

"Most Insured Games in Olympic History" - Boston 2024

The battle for America's hearts and minds has truly begun!

Lol...apparently Boston was never fully endorsed by the USOC...at least that's what My Fox Boston is saying...Boston will fail whether it's now, next year, or in 2017 they will fail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got back from Paris...the La Defense is the most hideous collection of buildings I have ever seen...NYC, Chicago, and other US cities have much nicer skylines than that of La Defense. Paris itself is really the only beautiful part of the city and metro...Versailles is like this strange Paris wannabe. And if you are just slightly outside the main city limits it's all welcome to **** village.

Seriously though...stop calling those hideous buildings beautiful. They are sheer crap.

Ahahah. No, they are not sheer crap. It's just that they are in Paris. Had they been in NYC or Boston or which ever American city it wouldn't shock anyone. Plus, they're all gathered in one place, unlike cities like London.

Glad you enjoyed Paris! ;) Can't wait to go to Tampa!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahahah. No, they are not sheer crap. It's just that they are in Paris. Had they been in NYC or Boston or which ever American city it wouldn't shock anyone. Plus, they're all gathered in one place, unlike cities like London.

Glad you enjoyed Paris! ;) Can't wait to go to Tampa!

Well I guess I'll be a bit more specific because my first comment was douchey and rude.

Paris is one of the most beautiful cities I have ever been in before. It is truly great and I'm rooting for them to host. However, the La Defense sticks out like a sore thumb on a beautiful landscape. The buildings are bland, attempt to be too edgy, and really do not do anything. These buildings would maybe fly in like Houston or Dallas, but even then American skylines sort of have strange standards. I don't think some of the buildings in La Defense would fly in NYC...Freedom Tower almost looked similar to some of those buildings and that design was outright rejected.

Still, Paris is a gorgeous city...someone should just build some Art Deco/Neo Classical scrapers in La Defense to make the modern buildings pop more rather than getting lost in a sea of glass and steel.

Though, trust me, Tampa compared to Paris is like comparing America to Italy...the two can not be compared because they two different worlds. Paris is so much nicer than IMO San Francisco or NYC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Arf, thanks for that. It's just that Paris is, you know, a city. Quite a major one. It can't keep being a museum. When tourists go to Paris they're always surprised that it's not like on a postcard: there are smells, it does rain sometimes, dog's poo, homeless people, etc. Because they forget that it is a city, with people living there, working there, having fun there, having sex there, dying there, you know....life! It is NOT a museum. And as a city that has the most higher number of people per square meters in the world, it needs to grow, and to build in order to host all of this growing population. At least they're not building those towers IN Paris. And the suburb is, you know, a suburb. It's never pretty, never nice, and never quite safe (well, a european suburb anyway). Paris can't keep living in the past, it needs to move on, and I think that's why it's doing (expanding metro lines and creating new ones, new housing, lowering the price of the metro user card...redifining the limits of Paris basically). And that's why Games in Paris would be great as it will show the world the real Paris, whith some major venues in the suburb (Saint Denis) like the Olympic Stadium, the aquatic center, the athletes village, the small arenas, etc. Of course their would still be venues in places like Versailles, la Tour Eiffel, le Grand Palais, etc, but I actually quite like the contrast it has: postcard Paris vs real Paris. It's not about scaring people away, it's more about telling the world that Paris is so much more than the touristic places. When I have friends from abroad visiting, they're always amazed by the non-touristic Paris, which can be quite amazing!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the entire thing, and it seems like both sides are a little tunnel visioned for their side of the argument.

One thing I noticed is that No Boston Olympics kept asking why no private money from the plan is being used for the T, where without the olympics the taxpayers would have payed for the improvements anyway. I don't know if No Boston Olympics is trying to make it seem like private investors would do this (which they wouldn't, ever), but it seemed like something they glossed over.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I noticed is that No Boston Olympics kept asking why no private money from the plan is being used for the T, where without the olympics the taxpayers would have payed for the improvements anyway. I don't know if No Boston Olympics is trying to make it seem like private investors would do this (which they wouldn't, ever), but it seemed like something they glossed over.

There was a lot of discussion on transportation/traffic for sure. It's a valid issue, but there was definitely more to talk about. The reporters on the after-debate panel were impressed by the bid's opponents, but I felt like Doctoroff and Pagliuca did a good job holding their own. Seems like the opposition is focusing on traffic/transportation, the Olympic stadium, and cost overrun guarantees as their main issues. If the bid comes up with good strategies for these three issues and then communicates them well, I think you'll see public support start to turn around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the transport 'mess' hysteria a bit weird- recent Games that are very well planned like London and Sydney can manage Olympic traffic without any trouble. It is just all in the careful preparation. It is complicated (moving school holidays, pooling all regional buses, free transport with tickets etc...) but can be done.

Sydney's roads were empty during the Games it was amazing, everyone either used free public transport to events, or were at home watching on TV.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the transport 'mess' hysteria a bit weird- recent Games that are very well planned like London and Sydney can manage Olympic traffic without any trouble. It is just all in the careful preparation. It is complicated (moving school holidays, pooling all regional buses, free transport with tickets etc...) but can be done.

Sydney's roads were empty during the Games it was amazing, everyone either used free public transport to events, or were at home watching on TV.

It was the same with LA and Atlanta. Freeways were empty and a breeze. I guess Boston gets edgy on the topic because -- of LA, Atlanta, London, Toronto, Sydney and Vancouver -- Boston is the most compact and mostly built up downtown already...so yeah, the issue of traffic would be a near-panic button for them.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all just a complete waste of time & money now. The USOC is going to have yet another bid that is ousted either first or second, & that's if it even gets that far of multiple ballots in the first place.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It was the same with LA and Atlanta. Freeways were empty and a breeze

And in London. The "find another way to work" campaign (or whatever it was called) worked so well the trains were emptier than normal!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really too bad the pr on this is so bad, now we have another great American city being damaged by their association with the Olympics, this is just all bad.

Edited by paul
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, maybe it's better Boston took its hits now that it's early and just retire before another embarrassing dismissal in Lima in 2 years' time.

Perhaps. However, this is a reflection of the fact that Boston 2024 is the most transparent bid in history. Before even first official IOC deadline, we are discussing financial details of Widett Circle's development and examining insurance packages. This is a precedent that will guide future bids; will another city be able to stand up to such scrutiny? Also, Boston 2024 is the first US bid since the turn of the century that has not given any indication that they would not sign an unconditional financial guarantee with the IOC.

NYC 2012 promised that New York taxpayers would fund no more than $250 million of cost overruns. Chicago 2016 continuously flirted with the possibility of not making any taxpayer guarantees until the very end of the bid processes. With Boston's middling support, it is clear that any future US bid is going to face an uphill battle to obtain the public's confidence. It is very troubling news for the USOC that Americans cannot rally behind any bid no matter the city or the circumstance. I expect Californians aren't going to rally around a "blank check" to the IOC either if LA ever makes a bid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

NYC 2012 promised that New York taxpayers would fund no more than $250 million of cost overruns. Chicago 2016 continuously flirted with the possibility of not making any taxpayer guarantees until the very end of the bid processes. With Boston's middling support, it is clear that any future US bid is going to face an uphill battle to obtain the public's confidence. It is very troubling news for the USOC that Americans cannot rally behind any bid no matter the city or the circumstance. I expect Californians aren't going to rally around a "blank check" to the IOC either if LA ever makes a bid.

Well, what it really means is that the IOC and FIFA, better watch out with their demands. Not every wannabee host city/country will simply accept the IOC's terms point-blank. There will be resistance and many municipalities will simply go tell them to shove it. So unless they just want to do business with the greasy oil states and former Soviet societies, they better rethink their business model. After all, FIFA has like FOUR Billion in its bank account; and I am sure the IOC is not far behind. Why can't THEY pay for their parties?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So it looks like the USOC is finally going to bring down the axe on Boston this coming Monday. I thought the decision would come later in August to give Boston some time to get poll numbers up following the debate. As the article suggests though, if Boston gets dropped as expected, does the USOC try to get Los Angeles in the race or is it too late?

http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1028936/exclusive-usoc-set-to-make-decision-on-boston-2024-on-monday-with-los-angeles-ready-to-step-in

Link to post
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...

×
×
  • Create New...