AA's "Fat Flier" Got Whole Row
Ashley Dupre On Tiger Woods' Babes: "At Least I Kept My Mouth Shut"
Same-Sex Marriage Blame Game Aims at Paterson, Addabbo
Rihanna's Random Airport Search
Wife Tries To Abort And Poison Husband's Lovechild
Well, it looks like the Olympics coming to New York has a slightly better chance of happening. In a December meeting with European sporting officials, Mayor Bloomberg apparently knocked their socks off. In his estimates NYC 2012 is in a tie with Paris. The NY Times writes:
By the end, even people from cities competing for the Olympic bid were describing him as charismatic and charming.
Charismatic and charming?!? We never knew, Mr. Mayor. Then again, he has been reaching spreading his word throughout the city as well. An Australian member of the International Olympic Committee said, "He was a very powerful figure in the presentation. But he is also intelligent and approachable and he understands the Olympics. He sees the Olympic Games as a great unifying event for New York and its future." After reading comments from some of our readers, Gothamist wonders how unifying the Olympics will be. Then again, Bloomberg is talking about how the actual games would be unifying, not the process leading up to a potential winning bid.
A January article in The Independent says that NYC 2012 is quietly hoping that US support to victims of the tsunami will help the bid. The column's author, Alan Hubbard, also said "New York has almost won me over." With reports saying Moscow's bid has no chance, and some reports saying London is out, there are only three cities left. Paris, considered a favorite by most, New York, and Madrid.
Starting Thursday, the Evaluation Committee will visit the cities competing, with a visit to New York planned for February 21-14. Naturally, there's that whole stadium issue looming in the background of NYC's bid.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
We're not gonna get the games, not by a long shot. The whole plan seems good and thought out, but they wont like the fact that the Olympic Village will be far from the Stadium (Unless im Mistaken). The Stadium itself from the artist's rendering looks ugly and it SHOULD be located in Flushing Meadows Corona Park where they have space for everything. What were they thinking??
The London plan seems very nice to me. Ambitious yes but more realistic then having it here.
Wow. And without a Manhattan Stadium...
Shocking.
*IF* we gat the games, Must rember to take vacation outside of NYC that summer.
The IOC members should try to take the uptown 6 during morning rush hour. That would end New York's Olympic bid in about the amount of time it takes the conductor to yell "Let 'em off!"
Wait.
Curbed is saying are chances are worse, via the Observer. Gothamist is saying they're better, via the Times.
Either way, who wants to see France get it? No one except the IOC, apparently.
brian, that clearly means that new york has moved neither up, nor down.
then again, the observer article (also linked above) was mostly negative about london.
I may not be a fan of the Olympics coming here, but I'm totally glad to see someone talking about what a great guy Bloomberg is. I'm a huge fan of his. He's done a lot of good, if less than sexy, things for the city. It's too bad he chose the stadium/Olympics of all things to be his high-profile issue.
I have a feeling The Observer is biased cause of all the relocating and construction that has to be done.
They cater to public opinion?
Anyone who is rooting for NYC2012 needs to be rooting for them to move up, as they started out as an underdog. While London's position might be sinking faster than a lead sailboat, the dual-opinions on NYC's bid mean that we will probably lose out too.
But as I read the Politicker entry and followed some of the links, I was somewhat reassured - not only did we nearly win the 1984 games, but we've been somehow chugging along ever since. I know that these same links are the ones that discount the chances of generating a 2016 bid from NYC, but I'd still feel good about our chances for 2016 even if 2012 is lost.
Remember, Paris nearly has everything built - they're the anti-Athens, which is one of the BIG advantages in this race. That's perhaps too strong to overcome - and it would be unlikely to have such strong competition in future bids from other cities. We should give this race all we have, but we should definitely not make this our last shot at hosting the games.
I lived in LA when they had the Olympics the 2nd time. Everyone predicted the worst...some people thought traffic would be so bad that people would just park their cars on the freeway.
Instead, alot of people left town or took time off from work. But, basically, it was cool. Going to the Olympics is fun: I went to a couple of track and field events, water polo, volleyball, and basketball. Some of the tickets were $5, some $200. I'm secretly hoping NYC gets the Olympics.
I always thought I missed my best chance to go to the Olympics in 1996 when I was living 12 hours from Atlanta. I would even volunteer to help out if NYC actually won the games. But I wonder how the IOC is going to react once they find out about the C train disaster, which will undoubtedly still be going on when they make their site visit.
Has anyone really done an analysis of the economic benefit of hosting an Olympics? Because my gut tells me it is basically a crap shoot.
I mean, Atlanta had the Olympics, and that city is still a pit. And Salt Lake City didn't make out like they thought they would.
Frankly, this thing seems like it is being pushed by the construction and hotel lobbies, who undoubtedly would pocket a chunk of change.. But I think for most of us who live and work here, the Olypmics will be a huge pain in the ass with no benefits.
It would be extremely difficult to do any sort of credible general analysis on what the Olympics does or doesn't do for a city -- how do you statistically adjust Los Angeles to Lillehammer without twisting your study totally out of whack? Do you toss out Sarajevo? Nazi Berlin? And how many credible economic statistics do you suppose exist for Moscow circa 1980?
Even at all that, however, I suspect the economic benefits from the Olympics are basically a wash. Consumption-tax revenues may climb, but productivity inevitable decreases as residents head out of town, etc. Long term, infrastructure improvements that are made to attract the games are a probably a plus, but the spending could push the city and the state further into the red and create debt-service problems and all the other attendant headaches of deficits.
For what it's worth, I don't buy the concern of people who crow about crowding as a good reason to oppose the Olympics. There would probably be a good deal of drain as many city dwellers head out of town to avoid the games (this happened in both Boston and New York this year with the political conventions). Again, I think that you're basically looking at a wash. I'm generally opposed to the Olympics coming here as I think the political resources would be better spend getting New York, say, more homeland security money. But I'm not terribly concerned that my subway car will be stuffed to popping with media types and foreigners in track suits (at least not any more than usual, any way) if the games do roll in.
Distorsione di velocità, ché luogo piacevole. Osserva buon, ritiene buon! grande!