Which city will win the olympics bid?

People who lived in LA during the '84 Olympics universally report that those two weeks were the best driving, with the lowest traffic, since the freeway system was built.  Public officials and the media had people in such terror of traffic jams, and were so forceful in scolding about "unecessary trips" that no one went anywhere.  Then the athletes left, and the traffic situation promptly reverted to disaster status, in which state it has been ever since.

Click to expand...

Athens really was a big winner from the olympics - the transportation in the city has improved dramatically. I was there several times in the 2 years leading up, and I didn't believe that they would be ready. now that the olympics are out, but the infrastructure is there it is a pleasure.

From what I have read recently, central London is much less safe than the 20 arrondissements of central Paris.  Property crimes are through the roof, and violent crimes (short of the most serious) are also much higher.  Of course, this does not count the ring of housing projects around Paris ("the Zone&quot which has a far higher crime rate than the city itself.  But then not many Olympic events would be held out there.

London appears to be going through a fatalistic "There's nothing we can do" phase, much like New York in the 70s and 80s. Let's hope they snap out of it.

[Not to say that 'football hooligans' are not a problem in the UK, but how is that related to the Olympics? Many other sports are played in the UK, with no problems at all. London is pretty safe, its no Geneva or Sydney, but deff. no different to Paris.

Click to expand...

any time that you get large groups of forign fans running around the city, you can get xenophobic violence. in the UK, and I say this with love, xenophobic violence is already assosiated with sports and drinking. I would hate to see a few dozen romanian gymnastic fans run into a group of drunken football hooligans who took offense to soemthing or another - the british take thier street violence all too seriously. in my own experience, I have never had a problem with violence in london (I have had more trouble in Amsterdam, Moscow and Zurich, actually) but I keep on top of some parts of the news in the UK, and I am often appalled at the recent increases in violence. look at this - it is a little graphic. www.pop-campaign.co.uk

From what I have read recently, central London is much less safe than the 20 arrondissements of central Paris.  Property crimes are through the roof, and violent crimes (short of the most serious) are also much higher.  Of course, this does not count the ring of housing projects around Paris ("the Zone&quot which has a far higher crime rate than the city itself.  But then not many Olympic events would be held out there.

London appears to be going through a fatalistic "There's nothing we can do" phase, much like New York in the 70s and 80s.  Let's hope they snap out of it.

Click to expand...

I assume you mean places like Soho, Fitzrovia, Seven Dials, Covent Garden, Hampstead, Camden, Brixton, Southwark, and the Eastend.

There is no way you can say crime ridden, if you consider the majority of 'central' London, vis Mayfair, Holland Park, Notting Hill, Primrose Hill, Belgravia, Kensington, Chelsea, St. James's, Brompton, and Marylebone (far larger then Paris's 20 arrondissements).

London appears to be going through a fatalistic "There's nothing we can do" phase, much like New York in the 70s and 80s. Let's hope they snap out of it.

Click to expand...

Is possibly an international viewpoint, because that is not the way it is considered in the UK.

any time that you get large groups of forign fans running around the city, you can get xenophobic violence. in the UK, and I say this with love, xenophobic violence is already assosiated with sports and drinking. I would hate to see a few dozen romanian gymnastic fans run into a group of drunken football hooligans who took offense to soemthing or another - the british take thier street violence all too seriously.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I don't think that has ever been the case at Wimbeldon, Twickenham, or Lords.

Is possibly an international viewpoint, because that is not the way it is considered in the UK.

Click to expand...

This, I submit, is part of the problem.

Quote:

Click to expand...

any time that you get large groups of forign fans running around the city, you can get xenophobic violence. in the UK, and I say this with love, xenophobic violence is already assosiated with sports and drinking. I would hate to see a few dozen romanian gymnastic fans run into a group of drunken football hooligans who took offense to soemthing or another - the british take thier street violence all too seriously.
I'm sorry, but I don't think that has ever been the case at Wimbeldon, Twickenham, or Lords.
JM, have you ever been in a city during the olympics or a world cup? the very nature of the city changes. I was actually in london a few years ago during wimbleton, I honestly don't think that I even felt that it was going on. be in a city during the olympics and their is no way of not feeling it. and, frankly, I don't see the audience of lords or wimbleton wandering around the city not speaking english looking for a place to have some cheap beers.

Is possibly an international viewpoint, because that is not the way it is considered in the UK.

Click to expand...

I am not sure that I agree - look at the various issues in the new lately with anti-social laws, all of the discussion of binge drinking and the various brutal muggings in london in the past year for cell phones and the like.

it reminds me a lot of NYC in the early eighties - still very livable, but with way to much random violence.

Athens really was a big winner from the olympics - the transportation in the city has improved dramatically. I was there several times in the 2 years leading up, and I didn't believe that they would be ready. now that the olympics are out, but the infrastructure is there it is a pleasure.

Click to expand...

i thought that the olympics was more of a vanity project that's saddled greece with all these white elephant stadiums that they really can't fully utilize. it cost greece too much to hold the olympics. if you were to divide the costs, i think it saddled each greek citizen with a debt of around 5 grand.

IOC insists that there should be some footprints, ie. monuments, after the games. So, to get the olympics, you need to build all these rather expensive stadiums.

the reason LA worked so well was cause it didn't need to build new stadiums. it just used already existing stadiums, and why Russia was not considered a serious contender. Russia wanted to use the stadiums it built for the last olympic games.

i thought that the olympics was more of a vanity project that's saddled greece with all these white elephant stadiums that they really can't fully utilize. it cost greece too much to hold the olympics. if you were to divide the costs, i think it saddled each greek citizen with a debt of around 5 grand.

IOC insists that there should be some footprints, ie. monuments, after the games. So, to get the olympics, you need to build all these rather expensive stadiums.

Click to expand...

that's true, too, but it also cut the commute time from the northern suburbs (where a lot of people live, and a lot of what high tech industry there is in Greece is located) into the down town by building a pretty good metro and a few good roads.

I think that in th elong run evenn those who feel it was a waste of money today will feel that it was to their advantage.

the reason LA worked so well was cause it didn't need to build new stadiums. it just used already existing stadiums, and why Russia was not considered a serious contender. Russia wanted to use the stadiums it built for the last olympic games.

Click to expand...

Actually, LA had to build a lot of expensize new stuff for the '84 games: a velodrome, a series of pools, etc. They didn't have to build a new stadium but only because they had already built one for the '32 games.

I think New York would have had a pretty good shot if stadium construction were underway. London, Moscow, and to a lesser extent Madrid don't have a chance.

Quote:

Click to expand...

(jmswentworth @ June 30 2005,13:14) Quote any time that you get large groups of forign fans running around the city, you can get xenophobic violence. in the UK, and I say this with love, xenophobic violence is already assosiated with sports and drinking. I would hate to see a few dozen romanian gymnastic fans run into a group of drunken football hooligans who took offense to soemthing or another - the british take thier street violence all too seriously.
I'm sorry, but I don't think that has ever been the case at Wimbeldon, Twickenham, or Lords.
JM, have you ever been in a city during the olympics or a world cup? the very nature of the city changes. I was actually in london a few years ago during wimbleton, I honestly don't think that I even felt that it was going on. be in a city during the olympics and their is no way of not feeling it. and, frankly, I don't see the audience of lords or wimbleton wandering around the city not speaking english looking for a place to have some cheap beers.[/quote] Nor do I particularly associate that sort with any sport other than football, so we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Quote:

Click to expand...

(jmswentworth @ June 30 2005,13:13) Is possibly an international viewpoint, because that is not the way it is considered in the UK.
I am not sure that I agree - look at the various issues in the new lately with anti-social laws, all of the discussion of binge drinking and the various brutal muggings in london in the past year for cell phones and the like. it reminds me a lot of NYC in the early eighties - still very livable, but with way to  much random violence.
You didn't fully understand, I'm not saying that there is not a problem, but defiantly nowhere near NYC, that's the overstatement of the century, to compare London's crime to NYC's. Moreover, I stand by my comments in that the problem is dramatised largely than the reality by the media; even more so in foreign media than domestic - brings toward ideas of Fox, as an example Americans would be able to relate to.

Quote:

Click to expand...

(esquire. @ June 30 2005,19:15) the reason LA worked so well was cause it didn't need to build new stadiums. it just used already existing stadiums, and why Russia was not considered a serious contender. Russia wanted to use the stadiums it built for the last olympic games.
Actually, LA had to build a lot of expensize new stuff for the '84 games: a velodrome, a series of pools, etc. Â They didn't have to build a new stadium but only because they had already built one for the '32 games.
i've always been under the impression that the reason the LA Olympics was able to generate surplus funds was that there was a rather limited amount of expenses- LA tried to use existing stadiums whenver possible. However, IOC does not like that approach at all where the city uses existing infrastructure. If LA wanted to hold another Olympics, it would need to build a brand new stadium even though the Colisieum would still be serviceable. And, its the things like the stadiums which are really expensive. Yes, you needed to build velodrome, etc. but the costs for that are a pittance compared to a brand new shiny stadium which nobody is going to use afterwards. Globetrotter- Cutting commute time is a legitmate goal, but why would you need to bring in the olympics to tackle it? Wouldn't you want to try to deal with it even if the olympics didn't come? Considering the huge costs that it took to bring the olympics, couldn't they have spent only a fraction of the money to try to deal with that commute? What I really object is all the huge stadiums left afterwards which cost like a million to upkeep even though there aren't any events to fill those stadiums either.