i was wondering... what archinecters think about what city to host the olympic games in 2012? candidate ones are paris, new york, london, moscow and madrid.
I would rather it wasn't here in London. I just fancy going somewhere else to see it all. And lets face it: with the efficiency of anything in London it's bound to suck ass. I say Paris, viva la France!
I think Madrid would be an excellent choice for the games, although they'd have to overcome Paris, which was ranked 1st by the IOC committee making it obviously the city to beat.
Since the ground zero developpment is such a disaster, the north brooklyn project so controversial, and urban decisions taken by bloomberg are so stupid, I don't believe New York is still an alternative. The london project is probably too ambitious to consider realistic. I'm not too happy about it, but I think it's gonna be Paris.
paris is a good place, but i´m not sure it´s going to be there.
new york is not the city to host the olympic games.
madrid has an interesting project, but i´m not sure either.
london´s project is too much to be real.
do not know that much about moscow, any thoughts?
bloomerberg doing that bad? i thought he had created quite a budget surplus. he has given lip service that mayne's village will get built regardless of bid, very unlikely and shows his desperation.
why do u see it as unfuntional?
overly ambitouse projects is the name of the game, athens being the example.
That's what it used to be Caleb, and I think Athens was precisely the last XXth century type olympics. But these are the days of the so called 'sustainable developpement'. Even the olympics have to face it. It is a general trend in every international manifestation to reduce its budget and to consider the long term impact on the cities. I like the New York project better, but I think the political situation of new york may be too complex to deal with for the olympics right now.
i don't know bloomberg likes big projects, he was the one who finnally got the central park gates, even though JC and C funded must of it it had been on the board for too long
not that negative, just that i don´t know which one to pick... i agree with french, political situation in nyc is not the best these days. this is something to be considered, it´s not all about the projects. paris and madrid seem to be not as crazy as nyc nowadays.
Madrid, great city (and a place there). After staying in Paris recently...I'm not sure it should happen there. Not really a fan (personal Op.) NYC will not get the games (WTC, BS politics, etc. etc.)
In Paris, wasn't Volleyball to be under the Eiffel Tower, and in London on the sandy court of Buckinham palace or something like that? Canoes in the Thames . . . ewwww.
Being from the US and knowing NYC a little bit, it seems it would be difficult there, too much goings on. I would say Madrid if they can overcome Paris.
The whole NYC plan is overly complicated. People will have a really hard time to get from one place to another....and events such as "dodge the pickpocketer" and "escape from a concrete block in the east river" and "pissing on the third rail" will not be approved by the Olympic Committee.....
The problem with the New York bid is that they don't have an olympic stadium yet. It's that simple. Plus, LA hosted it in 1984 and Atlanta in 1996.....
London is the most ambitious = expensive, transportation will be a nightmare...
Moskow has security issues the IOC says, and they were ranked 5th by them.
Madrid has a very strong project (environment friendly too), I think it can potentially win it.
Paris in my opinion should have won it in 2008, and I'm not the only one to think that. They are the favorites but it will be close.
I think Mayors of the 5 cities should have a cage match to decide. Or Monopoly tourney, or something interesting like that. Not too often you get 5 world-class cities directly competing like this.
Perhaps we should get Donald Trump to submit his own proposal to the IOC? :oP
they are voting tomorrow, yes? Any wagers on who will win?
It seems as if it is pretty much Paris vs. London with an outside chance for NYC....Moscow and Madrid are pretty much out of it, right?
It shall be interesting. Plus they are all going to be at the G8 when the committee decides, aren't they? I would vote for Paris if I thought they would find out whilst in the same room together.....Chirac could do a little dance in front of Bush and Blair....
olympics 2012
i was wondering... what archinecters think about what city to host the olympic games in 2012? candidate ones are paris, new york, london, moscow and madrid.
opinions?
nyc...but i'm very biased american
caleb, have you seen nyc proposal? do u think that´s functional?
I would rather it wasn't here in London. I just fancy going somewhere else to see it all. And lets face it: with the efficiency of anything in London it's bound to suck ass. I say Paris, viva la France!
I think Madrid would be an excellent choice for the games, although they'd have to overcome Paris, which was ranked 1st by the IOC committee making it obviously the city to beat.
Since the ground zero developpment is such a disaster, the north brooklyn project so controversial, and urban decisions taken by bloomberg are so stupid, I don't believe New York is still an alternative. The london project is probably too ambitious to consider realistic. I'm not too happy about it, but I think it's gonna be Paris.
paris is a good place, but i´m not sure it´s going to be there.
new york is not the city to host the olympic games.
madrid has an interesting project, but i´m not sure either.
london´s project is too much to be real.
do not know that much about moscow, any thoughts?
ok, negative nancy, so no olympics then?
bloomerberg doing that bad? i thought he had created quite a budget surplus. he has given lip service that mayne's village will get built regardless of bid, very unlikely and shows his desperation.
why do u see it as unfuntional?
overly ambitouse projects is the name of the game, athens being the example.
That's what it used to be Caleb, and I think Athens was precisely the last XXth century type olympics. But these are the days of the so called 'sustainable developpement'. Even the olympics have to face it. It is a general trend in every international manifestation to reduce its budget and to consider the long term impact on the cities. I like the New York project better, but I think the political situation of new york may be too complex to deal with for the olympics right now.
to have it in London is a joke.
two words - public transport. Another word - shit.
also web site supporting the no bid
i don't know bloomberg likes big projects, he was the one who finnally got the central park gates, even though JC and C funded must of it it had been on the board for too long
:=) st.
not that negative, just that i don´t know which one to pick... i agree with french, political situation in nyc is not the best these days. this is something to be considered, it´s not all about the projects. paris and madrid seem to be not as crazy as nyc nowadays.
Madrid, great city (and a place there). After staying in Paris recently...I'm not sure it should happen there. Not really a fan (personal Op.) NYC will not get the games (WTC, BS politics, etc. etc.)
In Paris, wasn't Volleyball to be under the Eiffel Tower, and in London on the sandy court of Buckinham palace or something like that? Canoes in the Thames . . . ewwww.
Being from the US and knowing NYC a little bit, it seems it would be difficult there, too much goings on. I would say Madrid if they can overcome Paris.
if its not nyc then i think madrid should get it, one of my favorite cities.
The whole NYC plan is overly complicated. People will have a really hard time to get from one place to another....and events such as "dodge the pickpocketer" and "escape from a concrete block in the east river" and "pissing on the third rail" will not be approved by the Olympic Committee.....
The problem with the New York bid is that they don't have an olympic stadium yet. It's that simple. Plus, LA hosted it in 1984 and Atlanta in 1996.....
London is the most ambitious = expensive, transportation will be a nightmare...
Moskow has security issues the IOC says, and they were ranked 5th by them.
Madrid has a very strong project (environment friendly too), I think it can potentially win it.
Paris in my opinion should have won it in 2008, and I'm not the only one to think that. They are the favorites but it will be close.
I think Mayors of the 5 cities should have a cage match to decide. Or Monopoly tourney, or something interesting like that. Not too often you get 5 world-class cities directly competing like this.
Perhaps we should get Donald Trump to submit his own proposal to the IOC? :oP
is that possible in nyc? i think it´s already exploded with construction...
again on the news today! let's see what happens.
they are voting tomorrow, yes? Any wagers on who will win?
It seems as if it is pretty much Paris vs. London with an outside chance for NYC....Moscow and Madrid are pretty much out of it, right?
It shall be interesting. Plus they are all going to be at the G8 when the committee decides, aren't they? I would vote for Paris if I thought they would find out whilst in the same room together.....Chirac could do a little dance in front of Bush and Blair....
madrid
lets put them in baghdad!
take the games to the terrorists before the terrorists can get to the games.
chirac trashes british 'cuisine'
he must be worried ......
congrats, LONDON!!!
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.