AerLingus From China, joined Mar 2000, 2371 posts, RR: 0 Posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1310 times:
Which American city would YOU nominate to host the 2012 Summer Olympic Games?
Would you choose:
-New York City, New York.
-San Francisco, California.
I am biased toward San Francisco. In my opinion, it is the best choice. Great summer climate, tons of public transit already in place, sites already chosen for events, and much of it is privately funded, minimizing the taxpayer burden. Plus, it's San Francisco, for crying out loud! Why not?
Houston's image is troubled after the Enron collapse, plus it was recently named the fattest city (also, it's too damn hot and polluted).
New York has bigger things to worry about, DC does too. SF is in a perfect position to be the host nomination for the US.
But this isn't about what I think. What do you think?
PROSA From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5644 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1272 times:
I'd go with Washington. While San Francisco is an attractive candidate too, Washington's status as the nation's capital should count for something. Washington also seems to have the necessary facilities as well as a good transit infrastructure. Houston does not have such an infrastructure and (no offense intended) is simply not as "distinctive" a city as Washington or for that matter San Francisco. New York would be a decent choice but would never be able to get the necessary facilities built in time.
"Let me think about it" = the coward's way of saying "no"
Heavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1265 times:
Prosa makes good points about Washington, but that city's government borders on chaos half the time, and ripe for falling into the kind of payola traps that Salt Lake suffered.
Houston is quite possibly the worst place to hold a summer Olympics, although maybe the concept of being on a world stage would finally convince those pig-headed Texans to get their ass in gear about pollution control.
New York City will need a few years to recover from the massive public money drain the events of last year caused, though 2012 is ten years away...I could see NYC pulling it off.
My vote is for the Bay Area. There are few American cities as beautiful as San Fransisco.
N202PA From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1563 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1256 times:
Despite New York being the obvious favorite, the massive security concerns might outweigh the positives of having the Olympics held there.
Though I'm a lifelong Washingtonian, I don't want the Olympics here. They're too expensive, cause too much disruption of the local area, and are a massive waste of the area's time and energy. We have absolutely no need for the dozens of facilities that they're proposing to build (including a 100,000-seat Olympic stadium built on the foundations of RFK Stadium), and will not use them post-Olympics if they do get built.
San Francisco would be a very good selection; my money is on New York or San Francisco. But in the end, I think they will lose out to an international city, particularly if Toronto enters the bidding for 2012.
KROC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1239 times:
Houston is polluted and named the fattest city. There is some hard hitting reasons why not to have the Olympics there. Oh, and the Enron collapse hurt the city? How would that be?
I would like to see NYC get it to a point. Also, they could easily get anything built that needed to be built. Considering the many stadiums in the imiediate area, not much would need to be built. Despite all this, I am going with Houston. It's a nice city, no more polluted then any other city, expecially foreign, has a great location being on the gulf. Plenty of space and money to get the job done.
RogueTrader From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1190 times:
After the logistical failures at ATL in 1996, I think the IOC should give the US a miss for a generation or so........time for a summer Olympiad in South America or Africa.
Well, unfortunately for your idea only the US and its western allies have the facilities and can afford to have an Olympics. Even Greece, a so-called full fledged member of the EU is struggling to have Athens set up adequately for the upcoming games there.
Why should a S. American or African country spend money on something as frivolous as sports when their economies are in crisis and, at least for Africa, many of their people are starving?
Lt-AWACS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1153 times:
ONe- Houston is not the most polluted city, you can check the stats. All Houston did was Pass LA in Ozone only for two years (99, and 2000), Houston has already dropped to 5th on the EPA's list and is falling. For overall Particulate matter it was lower as well.
Two- Houston is very international with 75 Foreign Consulates, and even more trade missions (plus Russia coming soon), the largest Foreign port in the USA, and 8th largest Airport Gateway
Houston already has the venues built for everything, and the light rail being built to connect them, and the Funding ready.
and this 'fattest city' nonsense is BS, Chicago was second fattest (from their list they measured donut shops per capita as a factor-OK????) but is still great. Philly, Detroit and Dallas were also in the Top 5, I find it all nonsense (another seperate Pub had New Orleans and San Antonio at 1 and 2) . Houston also has the most playmates in Playboy history so we do have some hot woman willing to get naked as well
Houston has constantly ranked as the 4th best Restaurant city in the US (ZAGAT, Wine Spector, etc) Behind San Fran, NYC and Chicago. Also Houstonians eat out more than any other big city, on average 4.6 times a week (maybe they think that makes you fat.....)
Houston has many amenities. The Second Largest DT theatre district outside New York. A very low murder and violent crime rate (check FBI,a nd the state websites you can see the stats). Thankfully NY murder rate is down now as well. 4th Biggest museum district. The Texas Med Center, largest in the World. Houston has a low cost of living unlike the other 3 cities mentioned. Houston has touristy stuff all over Like NASA (Houston was the first word from the moon ) and the San Jacinto monument----and shopping like the Galleria (largest Galleria in the US) and the Park shops DT
Houston has improved it's traffic index 11 of the last 13 years. with more improvments coming now, plus light rail and a great bus system.
and last, it is the Summer olympics, it is supposed to be Hot (all the venues in those cities will be HOT, with San Fran the 'coolest')
I could go on but will stop now.
Thus my vote goes to Houston, (hell no one thought we would make the first cut but we did )
I'm not saying the US will win but I hope Houston getst he bid, if for some reason not, then my second vote goes to San Fran
ILOVEA340 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 2100 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1146 times:
It would be hell if it were in San Francisco... Th elogistics of it are just incomprehendable.
We have 2 bridges and 2 freeways leaving the city.
It isn't enough even on a normal day like today.
They would need to call it SF but actually build the stadium South of San Jose and then just maybe it would work.
AerLingus From China, joined Mar 2000, 2371 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1122 times:
Yes, SF has only a few freeways leading out of town, but the entire Olympics are not going to be held in the city. Don't forget that SF's bid is a regional bid, and for that we have ample mass transit options and a number of freeway options.
BART- Bay Area Rapid Transit, or BART offers high speed rail service to many of the Bay Area's more populated areas. A BART connection to San Jose will be completed by 2010, linking most of the Bay Area. Caltrain- Caltrain links the communities along the heavily populated Peninsula with heavy rail connections. Altamont Commuter Express- ACE offers daily services from Moraga/far eastern Bay Area to bay side of the hills.
Local transit: VTA: Valley Transit Authority links the city of San Jose and surrounding area with an efficient bus and light rail network. AC Transit: Links all of Alameda County with extensive bus services. San Francisco Municipal Railway: Covers the city with an extensive bus and light rail service (above and below ground). Golden Gate Transit: Links the North bay with the City of SF.
Oakland/Alameda Ferry (Oakland to SF)
Golden Gate Ferry (Marin area to SF)
Vallejo Baylink Ferry (Vallejo Area to SF)
In addition to that, Amtrak California offers frequent rail service to Sacramento, with the Sacramento bus and light rail system in place to handle passengers there.
Furthermore, there is an extensive schedule of flights from Northern California to the LA area (which will hold soccer events, if I'm not mistaken).
It's possible and convenient to go anywhere you need to go in the Bay Area without an automobile.
ILOVEA340 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 2100 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1091 times:
BART- Its a mess... I have tried to take it a few times and there is not way it could handle an influx of hundred of thousands of people.
Caltrain- While it is getting better these days, It is to selective of a service. Its great if you are going SF to Palo Alto or San Jose but try to get to Stockton or sacramento and your stuck.
I do not know a single foreigner that could figure out muni or Sam Trans. Hell I have lived hee like 16 years and I still don't get it. I know the N train because it leaves from caltrain but after that I know no more. I have tried to take the busses but it is just a mess.
The fact remains that outside of SF there is no way to branch out the people. If your hotel is in the Palo Alto hills or tracy or Santa Rosa how are you going to get to SF... Its not going to be easy. They would need to do a major revamp of public transportation in the SF area and northern California in general to have any chance.
Also Americans like their cars. They will tend to try to drive to SF or wherever. Traffic is bad enough around here w/o an extra 500 thousand people.
anyways... by 2012 I will no longer be living in the Bay Area so personaly I really don't care...