Thanks, Jeff. I liked your last post. If we get the bid, or, rather, if we somehow get the Olympics (!!!!) I just hope, as mentioned in my own last post in this thread, that Houston's leaders will improve the city's infrastructure as much as they can. I love my native city but I hate its backward-ass infrastructure, public transportation, et al.
I agree. The IOC is really trying to avoid another Salt Lake City debacle. No more pay to play. It is also important to remember that winter game locations are usually a little stranger because of the requirements - Nagano, Sarajevo, Lake Placid, etc. They have a whole host of different requirements from the summer games and there are fewer cities who can accomodate them.
John Lopez wrote a good column in today's Chronicle. Basically, he said that Washington's got the first spot locked up, New York is out, and the last spot was between SanFran and us. His take was that it would really boil down to style (SanFran) or substance (Houston). Houston's substance vs. San Fran's allure
Today's the day... Task force will narrow field to two cities Tuesday CHICAGO -- After months of work and millions of dollars, four cities -- Houston, New York, San Francisco and Washington -- await the next cut for the 2012 Olympics. By Tuesday night, the U.S. Olympic Committee's bid evaluation task force will have pared the list to two cities. "It will not be simple. All four deserve to win,'' said Charles H. Moore, the former Olympic gold medalist who heads the task force. "The cities are probably the four most qualified in the world.'' Task force members met at the O'Hare Hilton on Tuesday morning, with an announcement expected at 5 p.m. ET. The USOC's board of directors will decide Nov. 3 which city will be the U.S. candidate for the 2012 Games. Then comes the international competition. As many as a dozen cities -- including possibly Toronto, Rome and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil -- are expected to vie for the games. The International Olympic Committee will pick the host in 2005. "In one level, the nervous tension is building a bit,'' said Dan Knise, president of Washington DC 2012. "But that's also tempered by the reality that we've done all we can.'' So, Moore said, has the task force. Its members have spent hundreds of hours evaluating the cities and their bids. The team visited each of the four cities twice, with every member scoring the individual bids. The cities weren't ranked against each other, Moore said. Much like par in golf, the scoring was done against a neutral number. The biggest portion of the ratings -- 54 percent -- was based on the IOC's criteria for host cities, Moore said. Another 15 percent was related to the financial stability of the bid. The final 31 percent was something Moore calls "what it takes to win.'' That includes everything from how attractive the city is to the international community to how it would stage the Paralympics, which follow the Olympics. "We've been very thorough,'' Moore said. "It's a very straightforward process.'' But now it's time to pit the cities against each other. "When you play golf, you can play against the course, the par. Or you can play the players,'' Moore said. "This is the first time we're going to play against the players.'' Moore insisted no comparison has been done yet, but San Francisco and Washington are thought to be the front-runners. New York could be a sentimental favorite after the Sept. 11 attacks. Washington's bid centers around an Olympic Sports Complex at the current site of RFK Stadium on a cleaned-up Anacostia River. Similar to Sydney's Olympic Park, the complex would be the site of nine sports, the new stadium, an Olympic plaza, the media center and various support facilities. San Francisco's weather, waterfront and scenic vistas are its strong points. Organizers plan to use the Golden Gate Bridge as a signature emblem, the way Sydney's Opera House was used during the 2000 Summer Olympics. As the country's biggest city, New York is touting its expertise at handling -- and moving -- large crowds. The city also is selling its diversity and immigrant history, likening it to the Olympic movement itself. Houston's strength is its technical plan, with most of the venues close to each other and 90 percent already complete or under construction. Organizers have also promised an $87 million renovation to make the Astrodome an elite track and field facility, a plan endorsed by track's international governing body. The task force also must consider the IOC, which has members from all over the world. A city might have a great bid, but it won't mean anything if the IOC doesn't like it. "The key is that the USOC is going to pick the city with the best chance to win internationally,'' said Dan Doctoroff, New York's deputy mayor for economic development and former head of NYC 2012. "Otherwise, this whole process is futile.'' Moore has received input from IOC and USOC members, and he's confident the United States can present a city that will be to the IOC's liking. Some think the IOC will hesitate to award the United States a third Olympics in 16 years, especially considering the problems Atlanta and Salt Lake City experienced. The 2010 Games could complicate matters, too, because Vancouver, British Columbia, is a favorite to get those Olympics. "I think there's a 50 percent chance we can bring the games back here,'' Moore said. "We certainly have the best bids.''
SORRY he started by saying those two cities. My internet crapped out. I misunderstood what he was saying. you are right RC
Hmm... I heard SF and NY. Oh, ok. I almost got real happy too when I heard him say Houston. Stupid NY. You too SF.
This is BS. Our bid was superior to all of the others. I guess Houston doesn't have enough International appeal? NY bid is going to cost BILLIONS more than Houston's San Fran's facilities are spread out all over Southern Cal and Houston's are all close together. Well why not start bidding for the 2016 games now? If a US city gets the 2012 games and Vancouver gets the Winter games then there is no way we could get the 2016. How did Atlanta get the 1996 games... Houston 2016!!!
Channel 2 has info on the 2012 decision http://www.click2houston.com/hou/sports/stories/sports-163569720020827-150856.html
man, i remember somebody posted a thread about cities you hate or something like that. or why people dont like new york. This is just another reason of why I hate New York City. I am also kinda bitter that they might of gotten pity Votes. PITY votes. PITY PITY
KAM, lay off my town!!................... I am sorry for you guys, but well happy, and relieved. I understood the 2 best bids to be ny/Houston, with houston superior, however the international appeal thing is huge, and NY has the highest guarenteed financials. already over 250 mill guarenteed to the IOC. it is not concidered uncooth to flat out guarentee monies to the IOC besides the Olympics would do the most good to NY. we need infrastructure improvements, and this will be the impetus. now we gotta beat SF, than the world
Here are the problems with the 2 bids which were advanced by the USOC. 1) San Francisco Great weather...pretty scenery...but the facilities are HOURS away from each other. In Northern California the traffic will be abysmal. This bid will not be successful. 2) New York They have to build basically all the facilities in order for them to meet IOC guidelines. The NY bid states that they will need $4 BILLION!!!! But NOWHERE does it suggest where these monies will come from. This was clearly an emotional support of trhe bid by the USOC. The bid has no substance and will not be accepted by the IOC should it be presented to them.
Ref: 4 bil will appear overnight if NYC gets the bid. And SF has public transit. We do not. No surprise to me at all. The surprise to me is that all of you actually got caught up in believing Houston was ready to compete for the biggest of international events. Those Power of Houston fireworks going to your heads? And enough about NYC getting a sympathy vote. It's New York Freaking City. It's the most famous city in the free world. They can get the 4 billion and they'll trump us every single time this kind of thing goes down. People brought up the football team thing. If LA had tried AT ALL, they woulda got the expansion. NFL, McNair and Houston called their bluff. Don't let the Texans deal make you cocky. We got the expansion by default. This time round the big cities weren't bluffing. Let's just enjoy our basketball team, shall we? It kicks the **** out of the Knicks and the Warriors and will for a long, long time. That's cause it doesn't rely on attracting tourists and visitors. If it did, the Knicks and Warriors would beat us 10 times out of 10.
Esteemed Batman-- SF's mass transit will NOT get thousands of people from SF to San Jose. It will not effectively get them to Oakland. It will not get them to Palo Alto. These places are where a majority of the big events will have to be held. On a normal day in Northern California, people sit in traffic for 3 hours to get from San Jose to SF. What will it be like during the Olympics? Frightening. Mass transit does not help the normal commuters, so why would it help during the Olympics? As for NY...I don't doubt that they can raise the money. The problem is that the IOC is going to require them to say WHERE they intend to get the money along with assurances that the money will be there. Otherwise they'll go to Paris or Berlin...back to Europe where they like to be. Strong competition is expected from Rio de Janiero and Johannesburg, as the IOC would like to go to Africa and South America to make it truly a GLOBAL EVENT.
Reff, actually, the BART system in SF is being connected to San Jose rapid transit in the next couple of years. its already in the works. BART has been expanding southward into silicone valley at a rapid pace. sure sacramento may still be a stretch, but taking the 880 to Monterey isnt bad at all, and not that i have any Idea, but I couldnt imagine them putting anything besides sailing or something down in Monterey. major traffic causing events like track will be at stanford, and basketball in sac town san jose, or Oakland. NY is still miles ahead, but SF had decent rapid transit, and its getting better.
