Quote:USOC tabs N.Y. as 2012 candidate
City beats San Francisco as choice to host Games
New York City delegation members, from left, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Daniel Doctoroff and Jay Kriegel of NYC2012, celebrate after their city was named the U.S. candidate to host the 2012 Olympics.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., Nov. 2 — New York City turned on its star power, flexed its financial muscle and touted its status as the “world’s second home” to beat out San Francisco on Saturday and become the U.S. candidate for the 2012 Summer Olympics.
THE WINNING ORGANIZERS BROKE into cheers, tears and shouts as the close vote was announced and Frank Sinatra’s “New York, New York” filled the room.
On a weighted scale of voting by the 123 members of the U.S. Olympic Committee board of directors, New York received 132 points out of possible total of 223.
New York organizers, assuring the USOC that they have the resources and security to run the world’s biggest show, laid out an ambitious $5 billion plan that would place virtually all events within city limits.
“We won’t bring the Olympics back to the United States on the cheap,” Mayor Michael Bloomberg said, contrasting the city’s plan with a much lower cost bid by San Francisco.
Olympian Bob Beamon, who shattered the long jump record at the 1968 Games, began the New York presentation by calling his native city “the place that has welcomed more people with the dream than anywhere else.”
Comedian Billy Crystal put on a standup routine, saying, “New York - all the foreigners are already there. ... Every athlete can go home with a gold and a fake Rolex.”
Robert De Niro, Jerry Seinfield and Woody Allen appeared on a videotaped plug for the city.
Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani received a standing ovation from many of the voters and spoke to them about how the city recovered quickly from the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
“We have what it takes,” Giuliani said. “We absolutely love big events and we will not fail you. We will do whatever it takes to bring the Olympics back to the United States.”
The International Olympic Committee will choose the 2012 site in three years, pitting New York against such possible rivals as Paris, Moscow, Toronto, Budapest, Rome, Istanbul, Rio de Janeiro, Madrid or Seville in Spain, and a city in Germany, perhaps Berlin.
“There is no doubt this was a hard-fought contest. Congratulations to New York,” IOC president Jacques Rogge said. “We look forward to receiving their bid to enter into the race to host the 2012 Olympic Games.”
The biggest factor in the voting was deciding which city had the best chance to win over the IOC. The USOC, which relies heavily on a domestic Olympics to boost revenues, wants them back in the country as soon as possible.
“The United States is not the most popular nation on the face of the earth,” San Francisco’s communications director, George Hirthler, told the board. “That’s especially true in the Olympic movement. It will not be easy for the United States to win 2012.”
The U.S. bid could suffer if the IOC chooses Vancouver over Salzburg, Austria, and other contenders for the 2010 Winter Games. The IOC usually prefers to move the Summer and Winter Games around the globe, and it’s doubtful North America would get to host two straight Olympics. However, there were three consecutive Olympics in Europe in the 1990s - Albertville, France, in the winter, Barcelona in the summer of 1992, and Lillehammer, Norway, in the winter of 1994.
New York has never staged the Olympics. A San Francisco Olympics would have been the third Summer Games in California. The games were held in Los Angeles in 1932 and 1984.
One of the board members who voted for New York, Michael Buss, said he was swayed by the city’s confidence.
“I was impressed with their presentation, but more impressed with the comment that they could host any big event,” said Buss, a representative from the American Legion national headquarters.
A California board member, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, also said he voted for New York.
The San Francisco bid envisioned mountain biking in Napa vineyards, sailing on San Francisco Bay and other sports spread out within a “Ring of Gold” connecting four sites - San Francisco, Oakland/Berkeley, Stanford and San Jose/Santa Clara.
Bay Area backers pointed out that 80 percent of the sports facilities targeted for the 2012 Olympics, including 85,000-seat Stanford Stadium, already exist. Bid officials proposed capital investment of just $211 million, extremely low by Olympic standards.
The San Francisco contingent included Anne Cribbs, the group’s chief executive, who swam in the 1960 Games, gold medalists Michael Johnson, Kerri Strug and Marion Jones, and Mayor Willie Brown. Comedian Robin Williams appeared in a videotape as a weatherman, touting the Bay Area’s perfect weather compared with the heat and humidity of a New York summer.
New York organizers spoke of the efficiency of their plan, which centers on the “Olympic X,” a design that would align venues into a cross-shaped pattern, with a high-speed ferry running north-south and commuter rail lines running east-west. The average distance would be six miles from the athletes’ village, across the East River from the United Nations, to the venues. No venue would be more than 20 miles away. The triathlon would be held in its entirety in Central Park.
The idea is to get athletes and spectators from place to place - baseball at Yankee Stadium, soccer at the Meadowlands in New Jersey, equestrian on Staten Island, gymnastics at Madison Square Garden - without tying up traffic.
The New York bidders also pointed out that when the games would be staged, in late July and early August, nearly 1 million fewer people use city transit because school is out and many New Yorkers are vacationing.
The New York bid still has to overcome some loud local opposition to a $1 billion proposal to convert a rail yard in Manhattan along the Hudson River into an Olympic stadium and an adjoining 8-acre plaza. The plan, opponents say, would destroy neighborhoods, displace poor and middle-income residents and saddle taxpayers with a huge bill.
Confronted with post-Sept. 11 questions about security, city officials pointed out that any Olympics is a high-security event. A highly concentrated Olympics, they claimed, would help centralize law enforcement.
... while I hope that I will be able to see the Olympics in NYC when i'm 31, more than likely, our popularity amognst the rest of the world will cause us to lose.....
Edited By The Jays on 1036289042
It's in a decade yet still I wouldn't want it here, like we don't have enough trouble with parking and traffic, we need to import more bad drivers.
and all the millions and probably billions of dollars we plan on spending on everything for it. Fuck the Olympics and while we are at it, get rid of the terrorist organization known as the UN.
Get rid of the knicks first.
Quote:our popularity amognst the rest of the world will cause us to lose.....
Well, the next vote (international) isn't for another 3 years or so, and one reason NY won the american nomination was because of 9/11.- that won't be as big a factor then.
One big question is how the financing will work. The Stadium is supposed to be partially paid by NY Jets, the housing in LIC is supposed to have private financing.
While traffic will be a nightmare it does lead to a lot of potential money; not only will local spending on facilities spur the local economy, Olympics bring in more tourists than other events, and building of stadium will help future bids for Super Bowl, Final 4, more political conventions, etc.
Quote:Get rid of the knicks first.
you have been a veritable fount of wisdom lately :thumbs-up:
The city cannot handle the Olympics.....if we don't have enough money to pay our police and fire department, where is this money for development suddenly coming from? Granted they say from private funders, but don't be fooled about where your tax dollars are going.
Quote:if we don't have enough money to pay our police and fire department, where is this money for development suddenly coming from?
Does that mean you think that any money "saved" from not having the olympics will go to police/fire depts etc? never. My wife is a teacher; the city waited until the union threatened an illegal strike after something like 2 years without a contract before negotiating. There never is, and never will be enough money to properly pay those that should get it. Unfortunately money isn't allocated that way.
Some stuff can definitely come from private sources, because they are looking for post- Olympic uses. For example, athlete housing will be turned into private housing. There is also significantly more thought of money that will be brought in than for other events - a new Yankee stadium may redirect existing money, but an olympics will bring outside money if done right. I'm pretty sure that the LA, Atlanta, & Salt Lake City olympics all made money.
I'm not doubting that it will bring money, but it will also bring chaos. Commuting in the city is hard enough without the Olympics in town. Also, not for nothing, but do we really want such a huge influx of foreigners in the country? Do we have confidence that they'll all be carefully screened? I just don't think the city has the capacity to handle it.
Quote:Also, not for nothing, but do we really want such a huge influx of foreigners in the country?
Will we really notice the difference? :bouncer:
we have a huge debt, we could use the cash.
If the Olympics aren't till 2012, what are we going to do about the debt until then?
well, there'll be a lot of construction jobs for all the stuff that needs to be built, along with various other jobs which would get created over the next 10 years which would help unemployment which would help the economy. as a resident i can see it being a huge pain in the ass, but at the same time, the city would benefit economically in the long run, so it would be worth the headache.
How can we build stadiums etc for the Olympics when we are not doing a Damn thing at the World Trade Center site.
Quote:How can we build stadiums etc for the Olympics when we are not doing a Damn thing at the World Trade Center site.
Lots of different issues, even though it seems the same. The problem with the WTC site is they thought they had a plan, and no one liked it - that put the process back a bit.
Biggest problem will be Upper West Siders who have clout and don't want anything built in their area.
Quote:well, there'll be a lot of construction jobs for all the stuff that needs to be built, along with various other jobs which would get created over the next 10 years which would help unemployment which would help the economy. as a resident i can see it being a huge pain in the ass, but at the same time, the city would benefit economically in the long run, so it would be worth the headache.
True, but they won't be permanent jobs for the most part. Transportation issues definitely also need to be worked out better than just extending the 7 train.
Quote:How can we build stadiums etc for the Olympics when we are not doing a Damn thing at the World Trade Center site.
You can't build on the WTC for a few years....its only been a little more than a year, building other areas of the city is totally different than building on Ground Zero.
Quote:You can't build on the WTC for a few years....its only been a little more than a year, building other areas of the city is totally different than building on Ground Zero.
Why not. The Pentagon is completely fixed. Building on that site should be top priority. Wall Street Area is why NY was seen as the economic capital of the world. The reason they can't build because the city is allowing the families and environmentalists to dictate what happens down there. No one knows if it should be a park, a memorial, a business district. Having all these people decide what goes on, means nothing will happen. I can see it being an empty hole for at the very least another 2 years. The same thing is going to happen with the west side. Unless the city owns that site, which they currently don't, similar bullshit will happen.
Edited By Teenweek on 1036598006
The Pentagon wasn't completely destroyed, and you can't leave a gaping hole in the side of the Pentagon. To build on the WTC site now would be in my opinion disgusting. Granted they can't leave the site like that forever, but a certain amount of time must pass so that a proper memorial as well as structure can be erected.
Quote:but a certain amount of time must pass so that a proper memorial as well as structure can be erected.
While I disagree with this, it doesn't matter. No matter what you feel, you'd have to agree that there are a lot of interests involved. Victim's families, business interests, local residents, the state (who owned the buildings), and the landlord who paid for the right to lease the spaces among others. As this wasn't just any building, there are also symbolic issues. All of this isn't easy to figure out, and when they tried to get preliminary proposals they found out how hard it really was.
They are still figuring out which architect's should even make a proposal (Hey Barchie!)