zekekelso Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 1 problem though.. how do you plan on getting 100,000 in and out of that area (and Red Hook for that matter) when the nearest subway is about a mile away? Just send everyone across the Kosciuszko Bridge (note to non-New Yorkers... that's sarcasm) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternalcobi Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 Forget it, I paved way to the turks, if they don't mess up 'cuz we all know it'll be the state's fault Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.bernham Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 Seriously, bro? So you looked it up on a map and you think that makes you an expert? Yea, I only live IN New York City, what do I know. Okay, so first things first.. it IS Newtown Creek, not Newton Creek. I don't know what map you're looking at, but it's wrong. Do a Google search for "Newton Creek" and the first thing that will pop up is Showing results for newtown creek nyc. And then you think that's a good spot for a venue cluster. Yea, there is a lot of space there they could develop. 1 problem though.. how do you plan on getting 100,000 in and out of that area (and Red Hook for that matter) when the nearest subway is about a mile away? A little more foresight than looking at a map (especially an incorrect one) is needed here. To me it seems like Governors Island would be far more suited than Newtown. Alas the transportation will always be a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 To me it seems like Governors Island would be far more suited than Newtown. Alas the transportation will always be a problem. Any NYC Olympic bid MUST focus on transportation. That's probably the case for most cities bidding, but it has to be at the forefront of a plan here. Come on guys, be smarter about this. You're not putting Olympic venues on an isolated island ill-served by transportation. That's not going to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 ^I think that's just it. Cuz it's always the same ole repetitive rhetoric coming from them, which in itself has become constant repetitive rhetoric coming from them. If they do decide to bid, I sure hope that their 2024 campaign isn't just as constantly repetitive with reparative rhetoric. Cuz repetitive rhetoric usually doesn't win, especially if it's boring repetitive rhetoric.^ Quaker seemed to be accusing the USOC of double-speak (yes, we're bidding/ no, we're not) and I don't see that. As for the repetitive statements, because the language is so similar to previous stories, I have to wonder if the press is just running the same news again. It is timely because the Sochi games are about to start. The other option is that the press keeps asking the USOC what their intentions are and because the USOC hasn't made any more progress they're giving the same response. I'm not really sure that it's the USOC who is driving the stories. I can't see why they would want to keep saying the same thing over and over. In fairness, though, the likes of Probst and co constantly trotting out the "we may/perhaps/probably/plan/intend/are considering bidding on the games if it looks like a good idea" line is probably in response to be being constantly asked it by the media. What else are you going to ask a USOC chief these days after "will the US team be safe in Sochi?". Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barcelona_'92 Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 The USOC should save their time and money and skip 2024 all together. It's a no win situation. You know, after Tokyo won the 2020 Games, I thought the same thing, but after seeing what has happened with the 2022 Winter race, I think the U.S. should bid for 2024 if they have a strong candidate. We all assume that 2024 is going to Europe or South Africa, but what if neither Europe nor South Africa offers a competent bid? Is the general public in European countries going to support the Summer Games when the public in several European countries have said no to the Winter Games? The most likely European options for 2024 are Rome and Paris. Rome already backed out of 2020 due to economic concerns, and the French public and government don't seem strongly committed to a bid at this time. If neither Rome nor Paris bid, then what other European city is going to win? I highly doubt there will be a bid from Germany. It will be too soon after Sochi for Russia. Madrid is not going to bid again. Eastern European countries likely cannot afford the Summer Games. In a field without Paris or Rome, I'd have to think that a U.S. city would fare better than a B-list European city. There are also no guarantees that South Africa will bid, and if they do, that their bid will be competent enough to win. The USOC has already sat out the weak 2020 race, in which it might have had a decent shot at winning with a good bid. Given the current anti-IOC climate in Europe, I think there's at least a 50% chance that neither Rome nor Paris end up bidding for 2024, and about the same chance that South Africa can't or doesn't put forth a competitive bid. A U.S. city would look like a pretty good alternative in this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 Quaker seemed to be accusing the USOC of double-speak (yes, we're bidding/ no, we're not) and I don't see that. As for the repetitive statements, because the language is so similar to previous stories, I have to wonder if the press is just running the same news again. It is timely because the Sochi games are about to start. The other option is that the press keeps asking the USOC what their intentions are and because the USOC hasn't made any more progress they're giving the same response. I'm not really sure that it's the USOC who is driving the stories. I can't see why they would want to keep saying the same thing over and over. Not really so much double-speak as it is being vague. It's saying they are planning to do something, but dangling a big 'if' at the end of it. I think we all can read between the lines and understand to a certain extent what the USOC is thinking.. they would like to bid but they're unsure if they'll be able to. At that point, it's a matter of semantics and probably not incumbent upon us to try and take these things literally. We've long since learned that lesson listening to Jacques Rogge. And I think Rols is 100% right. There was a meeting, the Olympics are on the minds of many, so Probst/Blackmun got asked a question they didn't really have any new information on. It's absolutely not the USOC who is driving the story. If it was, there would be more talk of it on the Internet like there was back in December. This time, when I tried to search for news on Google, literally the only thing that came up was the report on this site. So yes, chalk this up as another non-story when someone was asked the same question he's been asked before. And of course all of us for jumping on it thinking it's news when it's really nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usa2024olympics Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 Seriously, bro? So you looked it up on a map and you think that makes you an expert? Yea, I only live IN New York City, what do I know. Okay, so first things first.. it IS Newtown Creek, not Newton Creek. I don't know what map you're looking at, but it's wrong. Do a Google search for "Newton Creek" and the first thing that will pop up is Showing results for newtown creek nyc. And then you think that's a good spot for a venue cluster. Yea, there is a lot of space there they could develop. 1 problem though.. how do you plan on getting 100,000 in and out of that area (and Red Hook for that matter) when the nearest subway is about a mile away? A little more foresight than looking at a map (especially an incorrect one) is needed here. Sure okay it does say it online but I was looking at the maps app that Apple gives you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanMUC Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 Sure okay it does say it online but I was looking at the maps app that Apple gives you And since NYC is the big Apple, it must be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usa2024olympics Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 You know, after Tokyo won the 2020 Games, I thought the same thing, but after seeing what has happened with the 2022 Winter race, I think the U.S. should bid for 2024 if they have a strong candidate. We all assume that 2024 is going to Europe or South Africa, but what if neither Europe nor South Africa offers a competent bid? Is the general public in European countries going to support the Summer Games when the public in several European countries have said no to the Winter Games? The most likely European options for 2024 are Rome and Paris. Rome already backed out of 2020 due to economic concerns, and the French public and government don't seem strongly committed to a bid at this time. If neither Rome nor Paris bid, then what other European city is going to win? I highly doubt there will be a bid from Germany. It will be too soon after Sochi for Russia. Madrid is not going to bid again. Eastern European countries likely cannot afford the Summer Games. In a field without Paris or Rome, I'd have to think that a U.S. city would fare better than a B-list European city. There are also no guarantees that South Africa will bid, and if they do, that their bid will be competent enough to win. The USOC has already sat out the weak 2020 race, in which it might have had a decent shot at winning with a good bid. Given the current anti-IOC climate in Europe, I think there's at least a 50% chance that neither Rome nor Paris end up bidding for 2024, and about the same chance that South Africa can't or doesn't put forth a competitive bid. A U.S. city would look like a pretty good alternative in this situation. I totally agree with you. I think that Rome or Paris might bid but Rome is definitely the weaker candidate out if those two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 Sure okay it does say it online but I was looking at the maps app that Apple gives you Kinda lose a little credibility there when you're offering up an Olympic plan and merely looked at a map without really doing any background research there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usa2024olympics Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Kinda lose a little credibility there when you're offering up an Olympic plan and merely looked at a map without really doing any background research there.Actually I have done my research before that knowing that it is one if the most polluted parts of the country. Also that the top half is mostly factories still used today but the other end is more abandoned warehouses. And I just looked on that maps because I wanted to take a screen shot of it. I would rather not talk about Newtown creek and more about the olympics thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryker Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 If Rome and or Paris is in the mix for 2024, then the chances for the U.S. are slim to none. There is no way the IOC is going to go three consecutive summer games cycles without going to Europe. The only exception would be if South Africa decides to bid and if South Africa were to bid and win then Europe is all but assured 2028. Same goes if a South Africa bid for 2024 falls short. If either Rome, Paris, and I would include Istanbul, decide to sit out 2024 and South Africa as well, then a U.S. bid has a good shot, but that's a lot of iffs that need to fall into place. Whether it's 2024 or 2028, any South African bid is going to be a heavy favorite much like Beijing was in the 2008 race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony E Loves Architecture Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 I'm not going to say that the Usa will lose if it Bids, because they will be a contender, but I'm not sure if they will actually Officially Bid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 I'm not going to say that the Usa will lose if it Bids, because they will be a contender, but I'm not sure if they will actually Officially Bid. That's largely been the consensus around here for awhile now. They need to find themselves the right city to partner with. And many of us are doubting if such a city will emerge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nykfan845 Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 If Rome and or Paris is in the mix for 2024, then the chances for the U.S. are slim to none. There is no way the IOC is going to go three consecutive summer games cycles without going to Europe. The only exception would be if South Africa decides to bid and if South Africa were to bid and win then Europe is all but assured 2028. Same goes if a South Africa bid for 2024 falls short. If either Rome, Paris, and I would include Istanbul, decide to sit out 2024 and South Africa as well, then a U.S. bid has a good shot, but that's a lot of iffs that need to fall into place. Whether it's 2024 or 2028, any South African bid is going to be a heavy favorite much like Beijing was in the 2008 race. Again, discounting any tangible bid for 2024 this far out is foolish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 NYC needs to come in with a solid stadium and legacy and they have a good chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usa2024olympics Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 NYC needs to come in with a solid stadium and legacy and they have a good chance.Agreed, the problem is that NYC isn't interested(which they should) they would make a incredible host Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 NYC needs to come in with a solid stadium and legacy and they have a good chance. Agreed, the problem is that NYC isn't interested(which they should) they would make a incredible host We saw what NYC had to offer for 2012. They swung and missed. Badly. And that was when multiple teams in the city actually needed a new stadium. Now, both MLB teams and both NFL teams in the area are playing in a new stadium. So that option is out the window. If it was as simple as coming up with a solid stadium and legacy plan, someone would have led the effort already. Because there's not, there's no real interest in another NYC Olympic bid and that shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone as a result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.bernham Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 We saw what NYC had to offer for 2012. They swung and missed. Badly. And that was when multiple teams in the city actually needed a new stadium. Now, both MLB teams and both NFL teams in the area are playing in a new stadium. So that option is out the window. If it was as simple as coming up with a solid stadium and legacy plan, someone would have led the effort already. Because there's not, there's no real interest in another NYC Olympic bid and that shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone as a result. Having recently obtained the complete NYC 2012 Bid Book I can agree and disagree. The bid was a very good bid, the major problem was location; had they stuck to their central Olympic cluster and placed the Stadium and Village there then it would have been a better bid. Another problem I saw was high-rise living for the athletes; the IOC doesn't really like that. Overall they could win if they had land and a better bid team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Having recently obtained the complete NYC 2012 Bid Book I can agree and disagree. The bid was a very good bid, the major problem was location; had they stuck to their central Olympic cluster and placed the Stadium and Village there then it would have been a better bid. Another problem I saw was high-rise living for the athletes; the IOC doesn't really like that. Overall they could win if they had land and a better bid team. I lived through the NYC 2012 bid. And you were, what, in grade school then? The problem is that they hitched their wagon to the Jets with their new stadium. And obviously that was never destined to happen. The funny thing of the plan is that for all the faults, I remember looking at it a few times and thinking 'you know what, this could work.' I think the issue was that the organizers were fixated on putting the center of action in Manhattan where they probably should have concentrated their efforts on Flushing Meadows from the start. Finding land in NYC is going to be next to impossible, so high rises may need to be the solution, especially if we're talking about a legacy of housing that needs to accommodate 20,000 or so people. Again, as the story always goes, it's not just about finding a location and putting together a plan.. that plan needs to work for the city both before, during, and after Olympics. Easier said than done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony E Loves Architecture Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 That's largely been the consensus around here for awhile now. They need to find themselves the right city to partner with. And many of us are doubting if such a city will emerge. I know New York City and Chicago don't want to Bid, but if they did, IMO they would be a strong contender, especially New York City IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord David Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 New York? How? With waning options with regards to their Olympic Stadium (there's no real need for another major venue now is there, what with the major sports teams having gotten theirs post 2012 bid), aside from a potential MLS venue for a future 2nd NYC side, how can a temporary option work? It would just be like Chicago all over again and be very costly. They don't need such an athletics facility with many located in and around the city. Where would you put the Olympic Park? Are you even going to have one? My idea of further land reclamation at Battery Park seems good and would bring the games to Manhattan, but I think 7 years to do such an ambitious project is just far too much, even if all NYC really needs to build by bid time is the land reclamation itself, Olympic Stadium, Aquatics Center, Velodrome, Main Media Center, Athletes' Village and temporary sporting venues like a waterfront rowing course. It might be a strong bid if they offered this, but would probably be too ambitious and risky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.bernham Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 New York? How? With waning options with regards to their Olympic Stadium (there's no real need for another major venue now is there, what with the major sports teams having gotten theirs post 2012 bid), aside from a potential MLS venue for a future 2nd NYC side, how can a temporary option work? It would just be like Chicago all over again and be very costly. They don't need such an athletics facility with many located in and around the city. Where would you put the Olympic Park? Are you even going to have one? My idea of further land reclamation at Battery Park seems good and would bring the games to Manhattan, but I think 7 years to do such an ambitious project is just far too much, even if all NYC really needs to build by bid time is the land reclamation itself, Olympic Stadium, Aquatics Center, Velodrome, Main Media Center, Athletes' Village and temporary sporting venues like a waterfront rowing course. It might be a strong bid if they offered this, but would probably be too ambitious and risky. In the 2012 bid the Olympic Park was in the Flushing Meadows area, if the city did another bid I would suggest expanding the number of events staged there, possibly a new 80,000 seat Stadium that could be turned into an event space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usa2024olympics Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 You could just build a new stadium for the jets or giants, whats so bad about that, besides the cost. You could always build a stadium over the big pond in flushing meadows like they originally planned to do so with the NYCFC stadium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.