RAP Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 As we grow closer to the USOC decision next month of LA 2016 vs Chicago2016, aren't some of us wishing that the USOC had a beter candidate? Does LA's old "tried and true" venue plan with the cheap "tin can" canopy over the LA Colosium(what ever happened to the NFL plan?) or the "bathroom down the hall" room at the UCLA -Ollympic Vilage dorms, really excite you? LA for all its great merits, will never overcome the "been there, done that syndrome". This weeks vistas of the Chicago's lake front skyline(will never be as spectaculars as New York's), and city of opportunity, hard work, etc.., seems to sound alot like New Yorks 2012 webpage jargon. The Olympic Stadium at Washington Park, which will seat 80,000 and reduced to just 5000 capacity after the Games for just $360M, will likely be made of cheap plyboard.(can it pass the fire inspection)??! What would you prefer: boxing finals at the United Center or at Madison Square Garden? Opening Cerimonies with the athletes marching down the Canyon of Hereos to ticker tape in lower Manhattan, or just marching into a facility that will hardly exist a year later. San Francisco sounded so much better. New York blew it when they threw everything into a bid that they must have known would not suceed in 2012(these games were destined to go to Europe), 2016 would of been theirs to lose. LA and Chicago seem to be cutting corners alot in terms of providing an Olympic stadium. Do we really need to bid for 2016? How about Denver, or Reno-Tahoe for 2018? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 You're sounding like a Madrileno/a in Yankee clothing, RAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolshundle Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 I'm tempted to reignite the Chicago vs. New York debate, but I wont. All I'll say is that Chicago defintely holds its own against New York. The question that comes to my mind is, does New York really need the games? Not really, New York already gets tons of international attention, same thing with Los Angeles. To be honest, most New Yorkers were oblivious to the fact that they were in the running for 2012. It's time to show the world a different aspect of urban America.... Chicago: a genuine, diverse, beautiful, and dynamic city that is too often overlooked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 Oh, here we go again with the 2012 was "destined" for Europe nonsense again. The last time North America held a Summer Olympics was in 1996. So if anything, 2012 should've been "destined" for NA. I'm sure big ole Michael Bloomberg & Co. (along with the USOC) wouldn't have even of bothered if they'd thought that were just wasting their precious time. When are New Yorkers just gonna be able to accept the fact that the bid just fell apart at the very last minute, geesh. And talk about a bias thread. But anyway, Chicago really doesn't need the Olympics, either. The city's done very, very well for itself on it's own. Which I guess raises a question; "which U.S. cities 'need' the Olympic Games?" That was a question that I'd thought about when New York was running for 2012, when some people were saying that New York doesn't need the Olympics, cause it's New York. Some of Rome's citizens also echoed that sentiment the last time they bid. The only *major* U.S. city I can say that really could "need" the Olympics is Detroit. I'm sure there are others, but decrepit Detroit seems to be the main contender that could possibly be changed for the better with an Olympic Games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAP Posted March 8, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 Oh, here we go again with the 2012 was "destined" for Europe nonsense again. The last time North America held a Summer Olympics was in 1996. So if anything, 2012 shouldve been "destined" for NA. I'm sure big ole Michael Bloomberg & Co. (along with the USOC) wouldn't have even of bothered if they'd thought that were just wasting their precious time. When are New Yorkers just gonna be able to accept the fact that the bid just fell apart at the very last minute, geesh. And talk about a bias thread. But anyway, Chicago really doesn't need the Olympics, either. The city's done very, very well for itself on it's own. Which I guess raises a question; "which U.S. cities 'need' the Olympic Games?" That was a question that I'd thought about when New York was running for 2012, when some people were saying that New York doesn't need the Olympics, cause it's New York. Some of Rome's citizens also echoed that sentiment the last time they bid. The only *major* U.S. city I can say that really could "need" the Olympics is Detroit. I'm sure there are others, but decrepit Detroit seems to be the main contender that could possibly be changed for the better with an Olympic Games. Why is this a biased thread? Who do you think the USOC wished they could choose for 2016? Chicago, LA, or New York? Its unfortunate that they have to choose from their 2nd of perhaps 3rd choice if you throw in San Francisco. I wonder how Chicago would have faired in the 2012 race? Likely no better than 3rd behind London and Paris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 It's bias because you're from New York & making it seem that "only" New York can pull off a successful Games. Obviously, New York was not under the impression that 2012 was "destined" for Europe, cause otherwise they'd be running right now for 2016. But instead, they'd rather be a big cry baby & stubborn cause the IOC did not hand them 2012 on a silver platter. It's done, it's over. It is what it is. I don't know why all the harp that "if" New York were to bid again, "if" New York this, "if" New York that, New York, New York, New York, when it's all moot at this point. They made their decision, & that was not to bid again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAP Posted March 8, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 It's bias because you're from New York & making it seem that "only" New York can pull off a successful Games. Obviously, New York was not under the impression that 2012 was "destined" for Europe, cause otherwise they'd be running right now for 2016. But instead, they'd rather be a big cry baby & stubborn cause the IOC did not hand them 2012 on a silver platter. It's done, it's over. It is what it is. I don't know why all the harp that "if" New York were to bid again, "if" New York this, "if" New York that, New York, New York, New York, when it's all moot at this point. They made their decision, & that was not to bid again. All the harp is beacuse its NEW YORK!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 All fine & dandy. But again, they're NOT running. They'd rather sit in their room, like a baby & sulk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAP Posted March 8, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 All fine & dandy. But again, they're NOT running. They'd rather sit in their room, like a baby & sulk. I just hope that Chicago2016, won't meet its "Waterloo" in 2009, like the Bears did this February in Miami. PAYTON MANNING IS GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 That's assuming Los Angeles does not get the USOC nod. And assuming 2016 is "destined" for Asia, or better yet, Europe again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 Yeah, & kinda like the stadium fiasco which also cost New York the hosting of the 2010 Superbowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA84 Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guardian Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 Love that picture, LA84! LOL! Anyway, New York City will get its chance some day. Maybe not now, considering what transpired in the past, but it may come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richardjordan Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 The Olympic fever swept New York when the Olympic flame passed through town in the Giuliani administration. As much as one knocks LA, that Olympics did leave a surplus. I did not hear mention of the stadium push here in NYC, that we simply could not win the Olympics without the stadium. Well, I was there in Singapore when Paris lost the bid to London, and the idea of building a stadium that can then be downsized is very appealing. You might also look at the work of the former Olympic fencer from Poland, Dr. Wojchiek Zablocki, in terms of stadiums and the environment and the future of the Olympic Games. And when will there finally be an Olympics held in Africa or Latin America (in the UN terminology, including South America)? Richard Jordan Chairman, NGO Committee on the UN and Sports As we grow closer to the USOC decision next month of LA 2016 vs Chicago2016, aren't some of us wishing that the USOC had a beter candidate?Does LA's old "tried and true" venue plan with the cheap "tin can" canopy over the LA Colosium(what ever happened to the NFL plan?) or the "bathroom down the hall" room at the UCLA -Ollympic Vilage dorms, really excite you? LA for all its great merits, will never overcome the "been there, done that syndrome". This weeks vistas of the Chicago's lake front skyline(will never be as spectaculars as New York's), and city of opportunity, hard work, etc.., seems to sound alot like New Yorks 2012 webpage jargon. The Olympic Stadium at Washington Park, which will seat 80,000 and reduced to just 5000 capacity after the Games for just $360M, will likely be made of cheap plyboard.(can it pass the fire inspection)??! What would you prefer: boxing finals at the United Center or at Madison Square Garden? Opening Cerimonies with the athletes marching down the Canyon of Hereos to ticker tape in lower Manhattan, or just marching into a facility that will hardly exist a year later. San Francisco sounded so much better. New York blew it when they threw everything into a bid that they must have known would not suceed in 2012(these games were destined to go to Europe), 2016 would of been theirs to lose. LA and Chicago seem to be cutting corners alot in terms of providing an Olympic stadium. Do we really need to bid for 2016? How about Denver, or Reno-Tahoe for 2018? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.