Will they have to change the plotlines of EastEnders to reflect the bulldozing of neighborhoods to make way for the stadiums? Will they have to bulldoze Wendy Richard?
You cared enough to click the link that read "The Olympics thread, winner and losers". I still don't get the "******** the Olympics because I'll be late for work" attitude among some New Yorkers. According to this story, NYCers are still cowering behind their hot dog carts. Look, the Sept 11 attacks were a terrible tragedy that would be horrific to personally witness. Terrible thing, especially if you personally lost a spouse or child. It might be heretical to say this, but could Tanya and John just get over themselves? Could someone enlighten me about this recovery thing? Is there still some debris to remove? What? I'm not being a hard ass. I just don't get it. I think that many of us have our own stories about personal tragedies that tore out our souls, but eventually you learn to shut the ******** up about it and stop boring the dinner hosts. I would think that giving NYC the 2012 games would be the equivalent of everyone sitting down and letting them cry it out. Indeed, we should always remember and never forget the tragedy, but enough with the "we're so scared" drama. Hopefully, Tanya and John are the exceptions. I'm off to put on my asbestos suit.
wow, i wouldve put money on london (honestly). they pretty much were just as strong a contender as london, but with the 3.00 odds on them... who WOULDNT take that? you couldve had $90, man. yeah, that seems pretty crappy. i mean... get over it already. that said, im a callous person and i hate paranoia. 1. cause, wow, you know, say "London" or "Paris" and you get blank looks. i think this even will really help to put london on the map, and wouldve done likewise to paris. 2. crappy how the system is run, isnt it? 3. eh. and finally, why do i like the way that patriotism/national pride is done over there. it seems so refreshing compared to our version of it.
What will the heck will they do with another 80,000-seat stadium in the middle of London? Wembley and Emirates are already going up. So who is going to use that thing after 2012? If it is West Ham, we all know that Olympic venues tend to not make very good soccer stadiums. Besides, all due respect to West Ham, unless they get into Europe regularly I doubt they can fill a stadium that big. It doesn’t seem like the best way to spend the money, though London has been guilty of building ultra-expensive-one-time-use facilaties before. Lets hope its not another Millennium Dome (conveniently sitting just across the Thames).
I don't know anyone who actually lives in New York who mentions terrorism or an inability to get over 9.11 among their top million reasons for not wanting the games. If anything, the idea that a New York Olympics would be a continual reminder of 9.11 probably annoys far more New Yorkers than it proves therapudic for. (And you'll notice the person in the story seemed to be from Texas.) The main objections seem to be pretty practical considerations of 'what would the Olympics do for those of us who live in New York.' And the answer that most New Yorkers have come up with was 'not much.' It's not like New Yorkers think the main thing that needs to be addressed is the city's lack of a velodrome. So what am I missing? What would it have done for the folks living in the city? There's a reason that most of the people at the event in Rockefeller Center last night were tourists. They are the one's who would benefit. Most New Yorkers just want the damn F train to run more often at 1 in the morning.
Yeah, because that's the New Yorker attitude towards the Olympics in a nutshell. Or not. And likewise for the link you provided. My objection, and those of people I know and whose opinions I've read, have nothing to do with 9/11. The city simply doesn't have the money. Sure, hosting the games would improve infrastructure and facilities, but it's not the infrastructure that everyday New Yorkers need, and the facilities will simply provide revenue sources for the already-rich. If anything, the development will further drive affordable housing away from Manhattan and accelerate the city's mall-ization. As has been mentioned before, NYC is broke-ass. The city has trouble keeping up with basic repairs, let alone building new ******** for a 2-week event. And while we wouldn't be nearly as incompetent and inefficient as Athens, there's no question that the Games will end up putting us further in the red. That's great for a place that can use an injection of civic pride, but please, we're not Atlanta. Increased visitors? That's great, because no one visits New York, ever. It's nice that they spend money while they're over here, they tend to shop at mall stores and dine at national chains, and ultimately not benefitting local businesses as much as they should. Last year's Republican Convention has taught us that effects of large events on the local economy tends to be negligible - yeah, the Games will be bigger than the RNC, but the returns are still diminishing. Hey, if you want the Olympics in America, you put up a bid. Just don't bring it to our backyard. Simply put, there are better ways of spending money than catering to even more visitors and pumping up civic pride for 2 weeks.
I guess in the end bad breath beat smelly armpits and body odor. (Sorry, that's a 'rivalries board' statement, but I couldn't resist)
Trust me they are exceptions. I live in Manhattan and it is tough enough to get around the city. The RNC really made this city a difficult place to live for a week. The Olympics would have been a security nightmare. Quite frankly, it's bad enough when the UN General Assembly opens every September. NYC does not need the publicity, NYC does not need the extra security, and NYC certainly does not need the traffic. As for cowering, I am not scared of another attack. That being said, I will never forget that day.
A sad sight to see. A village fool's version of Econ 101. A classic case of if you print it, someone will regurgitate it, or someone's village fool friend will. Let's see. We're broke so we're going to turn away all the tourist money and investments we could attract with the Olympics because we are too busy being broke. LOL!
because we are new yorkers, in a hurry, and hate stupid gawking tourists who get in our way. New york is so frickin crowded already, that we also don't want lame out-of-towners - worse than the bridge and tunnel folk already - taking up space at our favorite restaurants, bars, clubs, parks, etc. and they don't know their *** from their elbows. a) new yorkers I know are the last ones to talk about what they experienced that day. They usually keep pretty quiet about it. b) NYC is over it. When I go to a big gathering, I hear stupid stuff like "thank god the terrorists didn't attack today". With a texan twang. Cuz 4 years on, NYers are as frickin over it as we're gonna get, and no dinky mascots 6 years from now are gonna make any difference. c) real estate deals in NYC are usually never good for the common people - but are mostly some sort of swindle/handout for real estate barons. I saw nothing here to suggest this was going to be different. d) the only NYers I know who supported the olympics - own their own apartments and planned on renting them out for 2-3 weeks for $15,000 - which would more than finance their own trip somewhere else. Now that's civic pride.
The funniest thing I noticed is how little New Yorkers, and Americans in general, knew about our involvment in the '12 Olympics. Many didn't know we were even bidding for it and couldn't care less whether or not we got the nod. They had like a dozen people who looked like they need a job sitting in a subway or something doing camera shots trying to look concerned that we'll win. And then when we were eliminated, they looked all sad while everybody around them was just trying to get to work and didn't seem to know or care what was going on. But seeing the French cry from losing was almost better than winning the bid.
to add to what skip and jamison and others have said : This was Bloomberg's legacy, his 'baby' so to speak. The average New Yorker just didn't care. But Firehouses are being closed down, cops pay is being cut, schools are in disarray physically. And we want more boondoggles for rich Hamptonites? And yes, getting into bed with Cablevision on this one makes me feel as if I picked up some exotic VD. But you know, they were right for once. Even if the reasons were wrong. and re : recovering NYC. We don't talk about that day alot as a general rule, and mostly we have moved on. Except for the fatc that the WTC held a crap load of jobs which really have been outsourced elsewhere in the wake of 9/11. The gentleman most instrumental in blocking the West Side plan, Sheldon Silver, Majority Leader of (********, is it the Assembly or Senate?), represents the downtown Manhattan (i.e ground zero) area and wants that rebuilding project as priority #1. Mentally, we're pretty much there. Economically, NYC has not recovered 100% yet. (click on my blog (second post down I think) for more of my thoughts on the matter)
Forget it. This was all Mike Bloomberg's baby. It's dead. A move for 2016 will have zero political support.
It's an athletics only stadium, there will be no host user. The intention is to use it to host world athletics events primarily and concerts and stuff as a back up.
I was asking the same question. Who will take the stadium? Will it be a club, because there is already a stadium being built for the England National Team, right? Who has a club in that area that has the money to take that stadium?