So they're going to announce tomorrow (Saturday, November 2) which USA city will be the official entry for the 2012 Olympics. New York or San Francisco. Highlights of the New York bid are a new Olympic stadium on the west side of Manhattan, and a lot of the transportation infrastructure is already in place. And of course New York is the sentimental favorite. The San Francisco bid (actually, it's more of a Bay Area bid, since the Olympic Village will be in Mountain View and the Olympic Stadium will be Stanford Stadium in Palo Alto, plus events in San Jose and Oakland) features good weather (summer highs are very mild) and cheaper to produce since fewer new venues will need to be built. Cheaper = more $$$ for the Olympic organizers. Discuss.
Yes, after the USA city is chosen, it will go up against a bunch of international cities and the final decision will be in 2006 or so. I saw a list of the leading contenders but I forget what they are. It seems like there's an Olympics in the USA every ten years or so (Salt Lake 2002, Atlanta 1996, Los Angeles 1984) -- the main reason for this is, you guessed it, $$$. I can definitely see the IOC going back to the well in 2012 regardless of whether any of the foreign bids are superior.
My wife (alot) and I (to a lesser extent) have been volunteering for the NYC 2012 committee. Saturday night, we'll be at the Winter Garden with our fingers crossed!
They're starting to do the continental switch (like FIFA and the World Cups). The NYTimes was suggesting Rio de Janeiro 2012 has a strong bid among the IOC.
NYC and SF are surely great cities, but it shouldn't return to the USA that soon. 80, 84, 96, 02... there are other countries waiting. Germany will bid as well (national choices: Leipzig, Düsseldorf, Stuttgart, Hamburg, Frankfurt), but except of Hamburg I'm not convinced of any concept. Berlin should have continued bidding after their 2000 campaign.
I think the only thing that SF has over NYC is the weather and cost of opperation. Cost of operation can prob be offset with the fact that everything will be more expensive, not to mention there are more people in NYC(not counting the visitors). So they will make more money in NYC. Seriously there are MORE venues in NYC are than SF area so I dont know where you get the "will need to build less" argument. I mean by that time the Metro will hopefully have thier own stadium which can only add to the venues list. The Nets and Devils will prob a have a brand new building by then(no Continental Arena). And thats all with in 20 minutes of each other. If you wanna cover an area like the SF/Bay Area bid you can include places like Rutgers Stadium, Princeton Field, Mitchell Field and other University stadiums. Also unlike SF NYC has a top subway system, Bart is basically One line down SF with no connection to San Jose. Really I dont see a reason why this should go to SF, specially with NYC going against it. But one never knows whats going to happen so we'll see tomorrow.
SF is the closest to me so I hope that it lands it. I got the opportunity to experience the 2002 Winter Oly's down in SLC and that was freaking awesome! SLC put on a well run Olympics and I'm sure the Bay Area can put on a tremendou show as well.
Re: Re: USA 2012 Olympic bid city It's not my argument -- here's a link to an AP article which mentions it ("80% of the sports facilities... already exist"): http://www.olympic-usa.org/CFDOCS/borg/newsTemplate.cfm?spID=75&newsID=1240 I think the argument is that building an Olympic stadium in western Manhattan is going to be pricey, while refurbishing Stanford Stadium to bring it up to Olympic standard will be a lot cheaper. But overall, I think NYC has a superior bid, being much more of a world-class city and much better transportation options. San Francisco is great, but it's not big enough to host the Olympics by itself, and as soon as you add the venues in Palo Alto and San Jose, everything is so spread out that it makes getting from one event to another a challenge.
Re: Re: USA 2012 Olympic bid city The only venues that don't exist yet in the SF bid are a cycling velodrome and a completely rebuilt 100,000-seat Stanford Stadium. Total construction costs would be less than NYC. BART will be extended to San Jose by 2012. There already is an SF/SJ rail connection in Caltrain. Both have good bids so its difficult to know. Whatever US city is chosen will resubmit its bid for 2016 if the IOC chooses a different country for 2012.
Re: Re: Re: USA 2012 Olympic bid city Right but the IOC wouldn't have to pay for it. NYC would and they will make their money back on Jets games. Right, but what about all the other venues? Its not only that its also the overall transportation around the city. If people can only get to venues then what is the point or difference in having it in SF or anywhere else? People want to be able to get around sightsee and all that, besides Olympic events. Everytime I go to SF I have to take the BART in and then take cab/bus/bike from market street. In NYC transportation is seamless, you can take the subway to almost 90% of the venues and youll only spend $1.50 to get anywhere. I gotta agree, if SF(or anyone) wasn't going against NYC I would say SF is a great bid. ANd I LOVE SF!!! Been there a million times as well as lived there when I was a kid. But in terms of holding an even like the Olympics I think NYC has it beat.
Re: Re: Re: Re: USA 2012 Olympic bid city Almost all of the venues are at one of the following locations: Downtown SF (accessible by BART, MUNI, Caltrain, and ferries) Stanford University (Caltrain) UC Berkeley (BART) Santa Clara University (Caltrain) Oakland Coliseum complex (BART) San Jose Arena (Caltrain and future BART extension) San Jose State (future BART extension) There are a few locations where access is less than ideal (Spartan Stadium, Candlestick Park, Cow Palace), but almost everything, and pretty much all of the most popular events, are easily accessible by rail. In addition to its buses MUNI has lots of rail lines that can get you lots of places around SF. It's not comparable to the NYC subway, but SF is much smaller and is a different kind of city. People can do plenty of sightseeing around town without a car and without spending big bucks on cabs.
Atlanta was the worst olympics in modern history. Salt lake city won the bid through bribing corrupt olympic officials... Its tme for someone else to get the olympics...
I agree with your conclusion. Atlanta really belonged to the worst olympics I can remember (didn't like Seoul either). SLC won due to the corruptness, but this were great games though.
As a NY resident, I hope it goes elsewhere. The subway system is overworked, especially on the Eastside (and if the bid goes through, the 2nd Ave subway will be pushed back even further since they'll concentrate on the Westside) and everyone knows the traffic is horrendous from 59th St down. Rail access to Laguardia might be nice, but that won't happen since most of the international visitors will be using JFK. The city is in a budget crisis, they're talking about raising cab and subway fares and you may also remember a couple of buildings falling down last year. Sure, the Games will bring in quite a bit of money, but it probably won't help Downtown and definitely won't help ease the congestion on the Eastside.
Olympics in the US again? Uggh..I hope not...I'm American, and really dont care for the Olympics anyways, but It's ridiculous that the games come there every other flipping time. Give it to Istanbul or Rio or Stockholm or Auckland or Phuket or wherever...There are hundreds of cities worldwide that the games can go to, and giving it to the US everytime is ludicrous
The Olympics are like the World Cup in that there are very, very few places that have the massive infrastructure necessary to pull it off. The requirements of the Games for technology, accomodations, and transportation makes it nearly impossible for, say, Jo'Burg to handle it. That could be Rio's fall as well. With that said, if Vancouver wins Winter 2010 (as widely expected) the NYC people should pull out and refocus on '16 because they won't give both to North America simultaneously.
UHmmm.. they havent giving to anyone yet this is US decision. Get over yourself. It's like saying the US won the World Cup just cause it won CONCACAF.
Well, I thought Berlin 1936 took the cake for worst Olympics but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.