Any thoughts about New York being chosen over San Francisco as the US's choice for the 2012 Olympics? Here's a good article about it.

The Bay Area probably makes the most sense, weatherwise and spacewise, but New York is of course the sentimental pick.

The report lists other possible rivals as:

Paris, Moscow, Toronto, Budapest, Rome, Istanbul, Rio de Janeiro, Madrid or Seville in Spain, and a city in Germany, perhaps Berlin.

With Islamists having taken over Turkey, I have a feeling that will put a dent in Istanbul's chances. Budapest could be quite interesting - it's different. I can't imagine they'll choose another Spanish city this soon after Barcelona. My hope would be for Rio. South America has never hosted an Olympics, and after 10 years of prosperity under socialism, Brazil will be the perfect candidate!!

[ November 04, 2002: Message edited by: bridgeportjake ]

[ November 04, 2002: Message edited by: bridgeportjake ]

The prospect makes me ill. Not in my crowded, loud, tourist-infested, terror-targeted backyard!

If anyone in NYC knows if an official anti-2012 protest group is mobilizing, please post.

I'm a bit torn about this. On one hand, it could be a wonderful experience being part of an Olympic games. I would definitely consider volunteering. However, NYC has some much bigger issues to deal with at the moment before they can commit the kind of money and resources needed to put an event of this magnitude together. My hope is that they will have the traffic issues figured out, utitlizing high speed ferries, buses and trains. All that said, I say bring 'em on!

SNL's Jimmy Fallon: "Tonight, the U.S. Olympic Committee officially nominated New York City as its candidate to hold the 2012 Olympics.

It's really great news.

The really great news is that it gives New Yorkers a full 10 years to get the hell out of here."

[quote]Originally posted by bridgeportjake:
Paris, Moscow, Toronto, Budapest, Rome, Istanbul, Rio de Janeiro, Madrid or Seville in Spain, and a city in Germany, perhaps Berlin.
[ November 04, 2002: Message edited by: bridgeportjake ][/QB]

---

Toronto may not be in the running because Vancouver/Whistler is in contention for the 2010 Winter Games. And given our disappointing loses to Atlanta and Beijing, I would just as soon hold off our bid for later. Also, there are strong anti-Olympics groups here (the Bread Not Circuses people and the like).

GVF, I see what you're saying about NYC having bigger issues to deal with than the Olympics, but the bid IS for 10 years in to the future; the building required would keep construction workers employed at least and hopefully by 2012, NYC will have sorted out its budget problems.

Hopefully by that time, the Yankees will have finished below .500 for the 5th consecutive year, but I wouldn't be willing to lay money on that possibility.

I don't think NYC is going to get it, in any case. The (perceived or real, depends on your viewpoint) failure of the Atlanta Games are still fresh in the memory of the IOC and there's inidcations of wanting to go to India or South America, to open those continents up to the Games. London is also being urged to compete in an effort to revitilize parts of London.

BTW, the 1984 Games here in Los Angeles were great. The traffic was almost nil because companies staggered their work times to accomodate the anticipated traffic (why don't they do it now??). It was great and of course, going to the events and mingling with people was incredible. The trading of the little pins was virtually an obsession here for 2 weeks. Overall, the whole experience was a once-in-a-lifetime thing, though I can understand why Bill W isn't jazzed at the idea.

[ November 05, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

By 2012, it will have been sixteen years since North America hosted a Summer Olympics, so I'm betting New York will be chosen, especially if it is the only bid from this continent. However, I wouldn't rule out Toronto being selected, if it goes to the trouble of trying yet again. It certainly got screwed by Juan and his sycophants in the IOC when China (that bastion of democracy and clean air) was awarded the 2008 Games.

It would be nice to see either South America or Africa host their first Olympics, but given the fragile economies and domestic turmoil in many of their countries (especially Africa), I can't see that happening any time soon, nor should it when large numbers of their people barely eke out a daily existence.

More and more, I'm starting to think that with the enormous costs of putting together the world-class facilities needed for both Summer and Winter Olympics, we should start re-using existing sites. Many facilities become wastefully under-utilized 'white elephants' once the Games are over anyway (I drive by one of these every day, ie the ski jump towers built for the 1988 Winter Olympics here in Calgary). I don't mean to sound preachy, and I know I'm being naively idealistic, but I would much prefer to see some of the billions spent on the Olympics be re-directed to more urgent causes like bringing an end to disease, starvation and war. I think that's more important than the temporary prestige a city or country gets from hosting a two-week event once in a lifetime.

[ November 05, 2002: Message edited by: Marc ]

[quote]More and more, I'm starting to think that with the enormous costs of putting together the world-class facilities needed for both Summer and Winter Olympics, we should start re-using existing sites.

---

That's exactly what the IOC does not want. The Olympics are not to be of such a grand scale that only the wealthiest, largest cities can host. That gets away from the spirit of the competition. That's why the IOC is working on reeling in the ever expanding Olympic girth. At the rate that the games are growing, only the United States and the world's megalopolises will be able to host.

I think a permanent site for the Olympics may not be a bad idea.

There are ones for the UN, Vatican and other non-national institutions. It would not only be more efficient, it would supply a neutral territory for international sports of all sorts.

I think the SF Bay Area would have been a far better choice- better weather, more modern facilities, more picturesque venue, great fans and hospitable atmosphere to foreigners are the major advantages.

I think this was a sympathy vote to save a frightened, terrorist-wounded, dying city.

[quote]Originally posted by m1011:
I think the SF Bay Area would have been a far better choice- better weather, more modern facilities, more picturesque venue, great fans and hospitable atmosphere to foreigners are the major advantages.I think this was a sympathy vote to save a frightened, terrorist-wounded, dying city.

---

New York is the ONE city that doesn't need the Olympics to prove anything. It is in a class all by itself. And much of New York consists of foreigners - how much more hospitable can you get? NYC ain't scared Babe - and it ain't dyin --look at the real estate prices! It was terrorist -wounded but that ain't NYC's fault. I LOVE NEW YORK!

There are two different problems here. One, is the US nomination and the second is how the IOC should handle selecting cities for the Games. As far as our nomination goes, if the US had a chance to be in the running, they killed it by selecting New York. But I don't think it mattered anyway. With Atlanta leaving a bad taste even 6 yrs later and SLC exposing bid scandals, figure skating scandals, and drug scandals (not really Salt lakes falt, but they are forever associated nonetheless), it's hard to believe the IOC wants anything to do with the USA.
That said, I believe the bigger problem is the IOC itself. They continue to pathetically police themselves and have become more of a crisis control organization than a world leader in the creation and philosophy of international sport. The aura that surrounded the Olympics (and should surround the Olympics) is seriously diminishing because it's hard to relate to such a corrupt organization when we are trying to focus on the ideals of human athletic achivement. That might sound corny, but the Olympics are an amazing idea, a human phenomenon in athletic as well as social, plolitcal, and philsophical realms. I think it's worth fighting for and that means a lot of changes. I could go on forever about this with things like cutting the number of sports/events, the idea of permenent sites, and even the possibilty of getting rid of the IOC as it is now and innovating a new type of organization. Anyway, that's my 2 cents since the New York decision got me all fired up about this stuff again...

Does anyone else have an opinion on the IOC and the current outlook for the Olypics in general?

Reviving an old thread having to do with the 2012 Olympics (it's never too early...) Leipzig has been chosen as Germany's candidate to hold the games over Hamburg, Stuttgart, Dusseldorf, and Frankfurt. Ney York and Madrid have already submitted bids while Moscoe, Paris, London, and eitehr Rio de Janeiro or Sao Paolo are expected to file in the coming weeks.

~Adam

I'm re-reviving this old thread about having a Big Apple Olympics in 2012. This architectural exhibit should be interesting, whether or not the event actually happens. The gallery is on LaGuardia Place, just south of Washington Square.

Well, the official list of candidates seems to be down to Paris, Leipzig, New York, Moscow, Istanbul, Havana, London, Madrid and Rio. Most of the them has some flaws. I kind of like Rio. It's somewhere different, and it's big enough of a name to hold its own with NYC, London and Paris. Although personally, I think Cape Town should have tried for it, because I think they could have been a great dark horse in this race.