NEW YORK | 2024 Olympics Bid?

[Chase Unperson]

Originally Posted by ue

^ Except that Paris has already hosted the games and would basically win the 2024 games solely for nostalgic purposes. NYC is the glaring global city that hasn't hosted the games, so I don't know why you'd root for Paris over NYC.


.

Because Paris is my favorite city along with NYC. Paris has not hosted the bloody games in my ruddy memory. The last time they hosted them was in bloody 1924! That is like a million years ago.

[ue]

Yeah, and New York hosted them in no one's ruddy memory. That's like, never. I'm just saying, if I liked two cities equally, in this situation, I'd root more for the one that hasn't hosted over the one that has. Just my opinion.

[Chase Unperson]

Originally Posted by ue

Yeah, and New York hosted them in no one's ruddy memory. That's like, never. I'm just saying, if I liked two cities equally, in this situation, I'd root more for the one that hasn't hosted over the one that has. Just my opinion.

Well by 2024 basically no one alive will remember the Paris games. It will almost be like saying that NYC should hold it before ruddy Athens because they held it in bloody 776 BC.

But I will be so happy if NYC wins it. No city in America is more worthy.

[ue]

Athens hosting the Olympics in 776 BCE is irrelevant because that was a different Olympics from the modern incarnation. Paris still has the Modern Summer Games as part of that city's history and many of the original venues are still apart of the city's fabric. So while few may be able to remember the games in 2024, it is still apart of the city. It's like writing off the Eiffel Tower's relevance because the last person alive to have seen it under construction died in 1997.

[HomeInMyShoes]

The IOC tends to be country and region, not really city based.

With more than 200 'countries' participating and at least fifty of those being relatively plausible as a host we could expect the US to host once every century at best.

They seem to have been given a reasonable fair shake to me. I'll agree that there are a few US cities I'd really like to see host, but also like to see Santiago or Lima or Buenos Aries host as well and the Olympics have yet to be in South America until Brazil now.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Hamilton

This thread is idle waste of space. This isn't going to happen. There is no popular support and little political support for this in the city, and the Olympic Committee doesn't want to give it to a city without political/popular support.

As other mentioned, America doesn't care enough about the Olympics, and that goes double for NYC.

Countries that feel they have 'something to prove' are just going to have much more political/popular will behind their bids.

Lol, the only city in the world that's just too good for the Olympics.

[Perklol]

Originally Posted by jd3189

LA is too soon. Besides, we need to show off our other cities, preferably our other large metropolises in the East Coast.

+1

Maybe we could fix/upgrade our infrastructure while were at it.

[chris08876]

From a safety standpoint, I would imagine it would be a extremely safe event. The NYPD is on its game when it comes to counter terrorism and organization. The games in Sochi kinda gave the world a scare. Although we had that incident in Atlanta, NY is kinda a hard target given the overwhelming resources that the city has when it comes to securing events. All of the marathons, UN security council meetings, etc, give the NYPD a lot of practice in protecting the public.

Hopefully Bloomberg 2.0 (DeBlasio), can further make the city even better. I was a huge fan of Bloomberg. He made NYC better, safer, and economically stronger.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by Eveningsong

+1

Maybe we could fix/upgrade our infrastructure while were at it.

NYC's infrastructure would benefit greatly with the Olympics. I can't imagine any city winning without some major legacy projects involved and the funding would be easier to obtain and justify with the games coming.

Look at what London did when they basically transformed a whole blighted section of the city (also over old rail tracks). I can see the same happening around the Queens railyards and a whole new area of the city being opened up for residential development and open space.

Other than the potential infrastructure benefits, I couldn't care less about the event. I'm only trumpeting the olympics because of the potential catalyst to improve the city and get some neighborhood transforming projects jump started. There is a whole section of Queens that looks like an industrial wasteland and this is really unacceptable in the middle of such a great and renowned city.

[ue]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

The IOC tends to be country and region, not really city based.

With more than 200 'countries' participating and at least fifty of those being relatively plausible as a host we could expect the US to host once every century at best.

They seem to have been given a reasonable fair shake to me. I'll agree that there are a few US cities I'd really like to see host, but also like to see Santiago or Lima or Buenos Aries host as well and the Olympics have yet to be in South America until Brazil now.

Yeah, I too would rather see countries that haven't hosted them at all get a chance to host the games. But, there are still glaring holes, like NYC, in countries that have hosted the games, that I'd rather those cities get it over another city getting their second or third time in the Olympic limelight (London, Paris, Los Angeles).

Because NYC has thrown its hat into the fold, this is the order in which I have support for 2024 Olympic bids:

1. New York City
2. Nairobi or Durban*
3. Istanbul
4. Manila
5. Taipei
6. Washington

Ideally, 2024 would go to New York and 2028 would go to an African city.

*I'd rather it go to Cape Town or Johannesburg, but South Africa deserves to host the games and if its with Durban as the host city, I don't mind.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

The 1904 Olympics were given to Chicago, but there's a story behind why it ended up in St. Louis.

Someone needs to put the bid in. The 2012 push might have been hampered by North America (Vancouver) getting the Winter Olympics. With an even reasonably compelling bid, North America stands a pretty good chance of hosting 2024. I would expect the toughest competition would be from a potential much-coveted African host.

Are cities in Africa preferred generally over others? I'm wondering what makes an African host coveted. Is it from a cultural standpoint or the weather for the events?

[aquablue]

Africa has never hosted before and the IOC likes to spread the games around the world to new markets. I doubt Nairobi would be ready for it but South Africa makes sense indeed.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by ue

Yeah, I too would rather see countries that haven't hosted them at all get a chance to host the games. But, there are still glaring holes, like NYC, in countries that have hosted the games, that I'd rather those cities get it over another city getting their second or third time in the Olympic limelight (London, Paris, Los Angeles).

Because NYC has thrown its hat into the fold, this is the order in which I have support for 2024 Olympic bids:

1. New York City
2. Nairobi or Durban*
3. Istanbul
4. Manila
5. Taipei
6. Washington

Ideally, 2024 would go to New York and 2028 would go to an African city.

*I'd rather it go to Cape Town or Johannesburg, but South Africa deserves to host the games and if its with Durban as the host city, I don't mind.

Although I'd prefer NY get it, Washington actually makes sense and not just because it's the capital. It is a city that has much improved and grown over the last 20 years and is ripe for a coming out party on the global stage so to speak. Many people have a negative image of the city from its past history and the olympics would surely help international tourism. Also people would probaby welcome the olympics unlike cynical NY'ers.

[ue]

^ Makes sense. I'd still prefer NYC to host it first because of its global status, but I'd be happy with DC getting it too. In terms of US cities, this is the ranking of which I think should get a Summer games the most...

1. NYC
2. DC
3. Chicago
4. San Francisco
5. Miami
6. Boston
7. Philly
8. Dallas/Houston
9. Detroit
10. San Diego

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by ue

^ Except that Paris has already hosted the games and would basically win the 2024 games solely for nostalgic purposes. NYC is the glaring global city that hasn't hosted the games, so I don't know why you'd root for Paris over NYC.

How is that relevant? Los Angeles also hosted twice and I don't see you bitching about that.

The only country that has hosted them twice is also far larger than any other country that has hosted the games in the past 30 years, except for China.

Also irrelevant, but if you want to make a point of it there are dozens of countries that haven't hosted yet so why shouldn't those get a chance before the US?

To North Americans, Moscow is European, due to it being west of the Urals, so it has actually hosted 4 times.

And to Latin language speakers "America" refers to North and South America both and if they don't get to decide what is "America" to you, you sure as hell don't get to decide what "Europe" is to Europeans (or Russians).

Not to mention practically every major European city with international significance has hosted the games already (otherwise, why give the games to London, why not Manchester or Edinburgh).

Not by a long shot. Also you seems to be oblivious to the fact that at the time many of these cities hosted the games, Europe had 1/4 of the world's population and most significant cities. There were hardly any countries at the time that were even able to host the Olympics outside Europe. Not to mention that the Olympics are European in origen.

But the US still has so many major, internationally significant cities that have yet to host the games.

New York, Chicago and?...

You'd think the IOC would want to tread through to new territories than giving the same cities the games. If the IOC were less Eurocentric, Chicago, DC, Miami, SF, Houston, Boston, Toronto, and maybe Guadalajara or Dallas would've hosted the games by now.

You are starting to sound like a broken record, but at least it is clear who here is biased (it aint the IOC)...

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

New York, Chicago and?...

DC and San Fran. These metro areas have massive economies and rank higher than many European capitals in GDP. DC has a metro area of nearly 6 million people and is the center of the political universe - given the power of Washington and world politics. San Francisco is the center of the tech universe with silicon valley right there. These are wealthy and important urban areas that have enough international influence to be worthy of the games.

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by ue

Yeah, and New York hosted them in no one's ruddy memory. That's like, never. I'm just saying, if I liked two cities equally, in this situation, I'd root more for the one that hasn't hosted over the one that has. Just my opinion.

Neither did Istanbul, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Singapore, Osaka, Buenos Aires, Santiago, Dubai, Cape Town, Johannesburg, Madrid, Milan, Copenhagen, Brussels, Vienna, Prague etc etc etc

In fact no city in Central or South America, the entirety of Africa, the Middle East and Asia outside China, Japan and South Korea and you are bitching about Houston and Washington DC...

It's clear that it's not so much the IOC that is "Eurocentric" but you who is US centric.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

Neither did Istanbul, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Singapore, Osaka, Buenos Aires, Santiago, Dubai, Cape Town, Johannesburg, Madrid, Milan, Copenhagen, Brussels, Vienna, Prague etc etc etc

In fact no city in Central or South America, the entirety of Africa, the Middle East and Asia outside China, Japan and South Korea and you are bitching about Houston and Washington DC...

It's clear that it's not so much the IOC that is "Eurocentric" but you who is US centric.

Well, given that South America is hosting 2016, and Asia in 2020, that really only leaves Europe and Africa as competition for USA in 2026. Since Europe hosted in 2012, I think N. America is due for the games. Africa will be the only competition.

[ue]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

How is that relevant? Los Angeles also hosted twice and I don't see you bitching about that.

Actually, I have, numerous times in the LA thread in this very subforum. I also alluded to it at post #50.

Also irrelevant, but if you want to make a point of it there are dozens of countries that haven't hosted yet so why shouldn't those get a chance before the US?

I will again refer you to post #50.

And to Latin language speakers "America" refers to North and South America both and if they don't get to decide what is "America" to you, you sure as hell don't get to decide what "Europe" is to Europeans (or Russians).

Oh, get over yourself. I was not saying any definition was right or wrong, I was merely stating the North American outlook. The Russians have to be on at least one continent, and the bulk of the population does lie west of the artificial Europe-Asia border.

Not by a long shot. Also you seems to be oblivious to the fact that at the time many of these cities hosted the games, Europe had 1/4 of the world's population and most significant cities. There were hardly any countries at the time that were even able to host the Olympics outside Europe. Not to mention that the Olympics are European in origen.

Somewhat true pre-war (but not fully), but definitely not true post-war. The Olympics may be European in origin but they are supposed to represent the world.

New York, Chicago and?...

Washington, San Francisco, Boston, Houston, Dallas, Philadelphia, Miami, and San Diego.

You are starting to sound like a broken record, but at least it is clear who here is biased (it aint the IOC)...

I'm not the only one with this opinion. In fact, I don't recall really discussing the Eurocentrism of the IOC before this thread and would be saying the exact same thing if the tables were turned, like it is in the case of Los Angeles. But please, tell me more...

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by aquablue

DC and San Fran. These metro areas have massive economies and rank higher than many European capitals in GDP.

How is that even remotely relevant? And the European cities with equal or higher populations to those generously defined US metro areas also have equal or higher GDP (London, Paris, Rhein/Ruhr, Randstad, Milan). Or are you comparing the entire Bay Area of 8 million to the 2 million of Vienna (European capital), just checking cause that's a game many on this forum like to play.

DC has a metro area of nearly 6 million people and is the center of the political universe - given the power of Washington and world politics. San Francisco is the center of the tech universe with silicon valley right there. These are wealthy and important urban areas that have enough international influence to be worthy of the games.

Again, nothing about this is relevant when talking about the Olympics. New York and maybe Chicago at one point should get an Olympics. I'm also fine with most of the other US cities that were mentioned bidding and wish them the best of luck. But by no means are any of these cities more deserving than about a dozen others one can dream up. Seeing people write bullshit about the IOC being Eurocentric because Antwerp had the Olympics nearly hundred years ago is highly annoying.