2012 Olympic finalists
 

Rather interesting news.

Excerpts from this Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/18/sp...-OLYMPICS.html

New York City joined four European capitals ? Paris, London, Madrid and Moscow ? as the five cities unanimously selected today to advance to the final bidding round for the 2012 Olympic Summer Games.

....

Paris had the highest overall evaluation resulting from 11 categories, including infrastructure, accommodations and security. Madrid was second, London third and New York fourth. Those four cities earned the I.O.C.'s highest confidence in hosting the Games. The technical report expressed some doubts about Moscow.

I hope Moscow is awarded the games. They'll probably do a better job of constructing AND completing their venue sites. Yes Athens, I'm talkin' bout you!

But then Moscow have had it in living memory, so I think they should be discounted on that point.

It's also not that long since Barcelona hosted, so for me that discounts Madrid. Also I can never understand why the olympics often go to cities where the weather is SCORCHING. Madrid would be murder for the athletes.

But what a mighty list of cities!

I'm guessing it will probably go to Paris but obviously as a Londoner I have to vote for London. What does everyone else think?

This list is interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_Olympic_Games

Apparently Paris last had it in 1924; London in 1948.

Looks like Paris does have a good chance. I don't know if I want it to come to NYC myself. But that could be interesting.

What possible reason can any established city have to want the Olympics?

It may well put some places on the map: no doubt it marked the global coming of age of Tokyo and Seoul (though did it do Mexico City any good?).

But in London, Paris and New York, it's just an excuse to squander public money on a collection of white-elephant stadia that no-one (except the sports and construction industry lobbies) want.

There's only one thing London needs less than more years of disruption - and that's the inevitable fact that it'll be our taxes that fund the bumptious follies that Paris will build if it wins.

If we want a couple of decent railway lines, we should build them for us, and not for a few weeks' extravaganza.

Net, net: Moscow, you're welcome to them. If we win, I'm going to Oz that summer.

OTOH, if we do, and anyone wants to rent an adorable little gaff...

Seems like Paris is best equipped. New York would prove a logistical nightmare - most of the events would probably have to be held WAY out of the city. And public transportation outside of Manhattan is a pain in NY.
Paris has great intra-city and regional transit.

Flanneruk makes a good point:

" it's just an excuse to squander public money on a collection of white-elephant stadia that no-one (except the sports and construction industry lobbies) want."

In Sydney, there is ongoing expense trying to do something useful with the area around Homebush most involved in the Olympics. All the venues are used, but not that often.

The latest scheme is to re-develop as a residential area - as it does have a train service. And Sydney was a great place to be during that time :)

At least our venues were all completed and tested a year before the Games started.