Sources: Men Arrested Trying To Repaint Bedford Bike Lane
Giuliani Takes Job As Security Consultant For Rio Olympics
Co-ed Dorm Rooms Coming To Columbia
New Jersey State Senate To Vote On Gay Marriage
9/11 Terror Trial Protesters Boo Obama's, Holder's Names
The International Olympic Comitee pared down the locations contending for the 2012 Olympic Games today, choosing five cities to remain in the competition. The cities chosen were New York City, Paris, London, Madrid, and Moscow. Istanbul, Leipzig, Rio de Janeiro and Havana did not make the list of finalists. This, of course, has Gothamist bummed because we were really hoping to travel to Cuba and smoke some fine cigars. There were reports that as many as six cities would make the list, but in the end only five were chosen.
The remaining cities will compete to win the vote of the IOC, which will announce the results in July, 2005 in Singapore. Because of its successful World Cup in 1998, France is already the favorite to get the games, with London as its main competition. New York is at a disadvantage because Vancouver hosts the 2010 Winter Games. Moscow made the list because of the 1980 Olympic games.
While the debate over the Olympics in New York is a heated issue, Gothamist Sports is all for it. Sure, there will be mass pandemonium with thousands of people descending on The City, increased traffic, and it will make New York even more of a terrorist target, but the Olympics is the finest events in sport. We would love seeing all the sports that don't get much publicity in the United States - soccer, rowing, fencing, and even taekwondo. The sports are often something overlooked in the whole discussion. How often do you have world class athletes in several different disciplines in New York?
Related, Gothamist on if Olympics are worth it, on the much maligned Olympic logo, and the design of the Olympic Village. The Times also looked at Thom Mayne, who has one design for the village.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
damn...i was hoping for Havana so i could see the standard rock toss and water splashing events...oh well.
NONONONONONONONONONONO
This would be such a fiasco. What a joke. Please, anybody, list some actual concrete ways this will benefit most people -- i.e., not just the wealthy -- in this city?
And don't even try to say there will be a "trickle-down" effect upon the less wealthy. Don't insult my intelligence.
I think the development group is saying that a lot of jobs will be created, with construction and various service industries needing to gear up. Also, I haven't read through the plans, but I think the city would try to develop some less-privileged areas, and after the games, there would be community centers, etc., left over. But maybe that's trickle-down.
Well, Jen, I see your point, but . . . I sort of suspect that most of the construction jobs will go to people not from NY, not to mention that, let's face it, it is the big development companies who end up making the real killing on these sorts of deals anyway.
As for the "community development" -- if things like the Olympic Village really, truly led to honest-to-God "affordable housing" then that would be great. But, let's face it, pols and developers tend to have a verrrrry flexible view, to say the least, about what constitutes "affordable." Also, the "development of less-privileged areas" sounds to me like a buzzword for gentrification of areas, which of course would force less-wealthy people out of those areas . . .
It's definitely a toss-up.
One the plus side, it would be cool to host the Olympics. There would be job creation, some lasting development in may areas of the city (especially boroughs besides Manhattan), some economic benefit to the poor (and the wealthy - when did it become a crime to do well economically?). I think it's easy to see the economic upside - besides the jobs, tourism is big bucks. New York already reaps major rewards for tourism and the money this will bring in, versus a city like Atlanta, should be greater given that NYC would be a destination anyway. Plus all of the money generated just by the visiting teams is significant.
But the downsides are big too. Historically, the Olympics has NOT left most cities better off when the games were over. The IOC is tremendously corrupt. Drugs/steroids sandals are present in most of the events. Traffic and congestion, not to mention security, will cause major headaches for those that live in the city.
Overall though, Tien makes a great point. It's about sports (at least it should be) and NYC should relish the opportunity to set the stage for the best athletes in the world.
j. - i think that it's impossible to guarantee that all the jobs will go to new yorkers. but i'm pretty sure that most of the jobs will remain in the new york area. i'm fairly certain that any new construction will be unionized (there might even be some non union stuff), and all those materials have to come from somewhere. nobody is going to buy cement from pennsylvania or even new jersey because that's too far away. the larger general contractors may or may not be based in nyc, but i'm going to assume they set up some field offices too. eventually, it all does trickle down in the construction industry, so at least with the construction, the money will make its way into the city.
and yes, james, i would love to see some of those other sports happen.
i happily have no real opinion except "that is one gorgeous regatta course."
I think the main benifet will be the creation of athletic facilities and common areas for the people of New York. It's been 40 years since the last World's Fair... go to Flushing Meadow Park on any weekend and see what the legacy of the Fairs were for "common New Yorkers". As long as they keep the new green areas and facilities available to New Yorkers after the Olympics in the years to follow, I don't care how much traffic there is for 2 weeks. For instance: Do you know where the major high school outdoor track meets were held? At Downing Stadium on Randall's Island... a decrepid old building that was a HUGE pain in the ass to get to by public transportation. Now if they built that new Jets Stadium and let the CHSAA and PSAL use it during the outdoor track season (which is in the spring, after football season) THERE's an example of a concrete way some regular new yorkers could benefit. I'm sure there are a lot of little things like that that are overlooked by people concentrating only on the two weeks during which the games'll be played out.
We need an Olympics like Brooklyn needs a stadium. Very much like that, actually.
Anyone look at the last four or five rounds for different cities? Catastrophic in each case: vast budgets spent, minimal returns reaped, and guess what: New York does not need more sports. You read it here first. Take that money and fix the subways, buy more buses, bring shelters and community programs up to speed, sponsor local gardens, fund business start-ups and pocket museums and culture/crafts programs.
Want sports? The quasi-municipal tennis, baseball, football, swimming and track programs can use the money. So can the chess clubs and the small film societies. Where are our orchestras? In an age like this one there should be small-scale repertory cinemas every mile in Manhattan, with a couple in each borough.
Olympic money does not benefit cities. It benefits contractors and politicians. End of story. It's easy enough to change the world; all we'd have to do is aim all funding and underwriting money toward taxpayers and services that actually benefit residents - first generation, not via some mass mall-style "trickle down" project. All of it. No exceptions. Money does not trickle down, water does. Different media...
Foreshadowing here:
In Greece, a lot of very wealthy people have become a heck of a lot wealthier due to the Olympics. Billions were funneled to private firms by the EU. Then, after the politicos gave out these funds to all the rich, they had the balls to ask young Greeks to volunteer their time during the Olympics.
Not surprisingly, they were not overwhelmed by volunteer applications.