TWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (11 years 20 hours ago) and read 4135 times:
The stadium would be built over the MTA rail yards on the far west side of Manhattan.
I'm not sure how I feel... I think it makes sense for the Jets to play in New York... but with property values the way they are and due to the finite amount of land in Manhattan, I'm not sure it makes sense to put it there.... why not Queens? As far as the Olympics... I guess I'm for them here... but after the debacle that was the 96 Atlanta Olympics, I'm dubious as to how successful they would be.
JCS17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, RR: 36
Reply 3, posted (11 years 20 hours ago) and read 4125 times:
It has its pros and cons. I lean towards the pros since I think New York is the greatest city on earth, but on the other hand there two major problems with the NYC bid.
1) Road/subway gridlock. Take a subway in NYC at 8:30AM, multiply that four times. I mean, the subways would be absolutely packed to the gills, the taxis would hardly be able to move with the increase road traffic and detours.
2) Hotels in NYC already charge on average $246 a night and a lot of them are booked solidly no matter what day it is. There is too much demand and not enough supply. It's gonna be tough for people from around the world to converge on Manhattan just because of the astronomical prices.
I think it would be an unbelieveable Olympics though. My cousin has already bought a bar near where the Athletes Village is planned to be built in Long Island City.
AA61Hvy From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 13977 posts, RR: 55
Reply 4, posted (11 years 20 hours ago) and read 4121 times:
I'd like to way in about this, as I may be living there in the near future.
I think its great. NYC has come a far way to what it is today, many people have a strong bias against New York in that its a tough rugged dirty place. I think some people will have their attitudes changed when they see the Olympics there.
MNeo From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2004, 776 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (11 years 19 hours ago) and read 4120 times:
As a new yorker i say NO. exept for the small buisnesses NYC would be essentaly shut down during the olympics. NYC does not have the infrastructure to handle an additional 1 million+ tourists. Anyone that has every tried to get out of manhattan on a weekday from 4-6 would agree with me
Pope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 19 hours ago) and read 4108 times:
I can't imagine what the security cost for the games in NYC would be. I think Athens spent well over a billion in 2004 dollars- and nobody really hates the Greeks.
If we assume a 4% discount rate, the 2012 costs, for the same level of security provide in Athens would be at least $1.3B. Given the threat matrix that a NYC hosted Olympic games would create, I think we're probably have to at least double the Athens expenditures - so we're talking about spending about $2.2 to $2.6 BILLION on security costs alone.
There's no way that the games will infuse that amount of economic activity into the NYC economy. View it this way. If the games drew 400,000 visitors (a number which I think is on the high side), each visitor would have to spend about $6,800 just to generate $2.6B of economic activity - not profit. And that's just security cost.
The games would be a huge financial noose for the city and the taxpayers of the City of NY, the State of New York and of the United States will end up footing the bill.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 22870 posts, RR: 53
Reply 11, posted (11 years 19 hours ago) and read 4091 times:
Quoting Mdsh00 (Reply 6): If they branch out and place most of the venues in the other boroughs, it could work.
I believe that it was planned to do just that. From what I remember, apart from the Olympic Stadium, there would be no new venues built in Manhattan, and only the stadium, Madison Square Garden, the Javits Center and an armory somewhere would be used for events. Everything else would be in other boroughs or New Jersey.
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Singaporegirl From Singapore, joined Oct 2000, 302 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (11 years 19 hours ago) and read 4093 times:
have they ever awarded 2 cities on the same continent back to back (winter and summer olympics) to host the olympics? vancouver is hosting the winter 2010 olympic... so i'm guessing that the summer 2012 might be going to a different continent.
Ladies & Gentlemen, we will now demonstrate the use of the safety equipment on this aircraft...
JCS17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, RR: 36
Reply 18, posted (11 years 18 hours ago) and read 4040 times:
Quoting ACAfan (Reply 9): Atlanta was a disaster, so was Salt Lake, to a lesser degree.
I went to events in both Atlanta and Salt Lake City, and I was actually there for Opening Ceremonies in SLC. The mass transit was busy and MARTA cars were sometimes fully packed (ughh, sometimes had to squeeze next to sweaty Euros), but it wasn't to the point where it was completely unbearable. I'd just compare it to a normal NYC rush-hour on the subways. Everyone was warned constantly to stay off the roads and traffic wasn't bad at all. Although I was only 13 at the time, I thought besides the bombing, it was pretty good. The only problem with Atlanta is that it isn't the coolest place in the summer, a lot of days it was in the low-90s with high humidity.
Salt Lake City was bad? I have no idea where you got that notion. First of all, as could be expected it wasn't as crowded as Atlanta. I never saw truly "bad" traffic in SLC. The security screenings and lines were a pain in the ass, but you had to go through basically the same thing in Atlanta in '96.
Pendrilsaint From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 685 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (11 years 18 hours ago) and read 4034 times:
lol, I really don't think the Atlanta Olympics were a disaster...mascots are always weird...jesus, look at that Greek...thing. I thought the opening ceremonies were great!!! I mean what was up with that stupid cauldron for the flame?
As for the Atlanta organization and transportation? yes, a debacle...Let's face it though, in other countries where you have the government so invested in the Olympics and providing massive subsidies, the mainly private funds used for U.S. olympics often pull the goals of the games in different directions. Why was Sydney such a massive success? Massive funding from Australian government. If we want U.S. Olympics to be massive successes, like Sydney, we must have more funds from the U.S. government a strong organizational body. Salt Lake and Atlanta were not disasters-they simply were not the best Olympics ever...
FLVILLA From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 394 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (11 years 17 hours ago) and read 4002 times:
I'm sure the US could pull off a great Olympics, get the right management on the project and some well placed funds and it could be fantastic. But I still wouldn't want it in New York, or generally in the US. Not because there incapable or anything, or that there no less deserving than all the other candidate cities, but simply because of the groups of people who can go see it.
Only citizens from 27 countries can easily travel to the US visa free on the VWP (Visa Waiver Program). Thus meaning a hell of alot of people would have to go get visas if they want to go and support there countries team. At the end of the day alot of people just won't go, and the games would only have a few people from the 27 countries and those who did get visas, but mainly only Americans would go. Now I'm not saying that America should open it's doors, it's a matter of security and the chosen 27 countries are most likely there for a reason, but what I'm saying is that the Olympics overall should be in a more accessible location where more people can go and enjoy the games.
Anyhoo, just my 2p.
I hope in life i can work to live, not live to work
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8364 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (11 years 16 hours ago) and read 3994 times:
I still think they will award the 2012 Summer Olympics to Paris.
The reason is simple: Paris has the transportation infrastructure necessary to hold the Games there (thanks to two major airports at CDG and ORY and the fact Paris is well-connected to the rest of Europe through high-speed rail connections; Paris will probably upgrade the Paris Metro to better accommodate the huge horder of visitors to that city).
LambertSTL777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 218 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (11 years 15 hours ago) and read 3973 times:
I'm hoping NYC doesn't get the games.. Yea it would be great to have the Olympics back in the USA in 2012, but not NYC. They can barely handle day to day hassles as it is. I honestly don't believe they could handle this. Take a look at their water production (everyone will be needing it during the Olympics). They currently have two massive gravity-controlled viaducts that bring water from upstate NY. Those are at max capacity 365 days a year, and at times aren't even adequate. Thats why they're *trying* to build a third, but when its completed, one of the other 2 will have to be shut down to be fixed.
The electric grids are at max capacity at all times, and during about 50% of the time are over-juiced (for lack of better term).
Basically, NYC is already maxed out on all of its resources, and couldn't handle all of the added people,cars,flights,etc. Apparently the NYC Olympic committee forgot about these things, or just thinks the problems will disappear. NYC is a city that has to be operational at all times. It can't just be shut down everyday that the Olympics are there, so tourists can use it.
Personally, I'd like to see them back in St. Louis soon, because I wasn't exactly alive when they were last here.. ..Yea, I know, pipe dream.
Triple shifts everday 6/19 - 7/1..Won't be on much