# New York must be the only top tier global city that hasn't hosted The Olympics



## Sarcasticity (May 21, 2005)

Calvin W said:


> Well you keep thinking that mate. The World doesn't even watch those four sports you have mentioned. Outside of North America most if not all of those sports and leagues have little to no significance...
> 
> Giants win two superbowls and that makes you the "mecca" of football? **** you are funny mate.....
> 
> ...


The world doesn't watch baseball, basketball, hockey, and football? As far as I know, basketball and baseball has a huge following worldwide.

FYI - New York Knicks won 2 championships since the 1950s, NY Giants has won 2 Superbowls in the last 5 years and 4 overall (one of the top teams in the NFL), NY Yankees is the most successful team in MLB, and NY Rangers and Islanders have won 4 Stanley Cup titles each with Rangers bidding for a spot on the Stanley Cup. It's an exciting time to be a NYer when it comes to sports this year. I wouldn't just laugh about it :cheers:


----------



## endymar (Sep 19, 2010)

I don't give a shit about sports (I used to) but some of those arguments are funny.
Even if some of those sports would be popular only in US then you have to consider that US has a big population. Ok, American Football isn't really popular anywhere else but SuperBowl is the most watched sports event in the world.

Hockey and Basketball are the most popular sports in some European countries.
Baseball is huge in Japan and Caribbean islands.

You can say that most of the world doesn't watch cricket, true, most countries don't but overall it's watched by a ridiculous amount of people. Look at many former British colonies, India for example.

Most countries don't know anything about cross-country skiing, most don't even have snow yet it's one the main events in Winter Olympics.

There are few sports that are universally loved everywhere... running where you don't need anything... soccer/football which is universal because it unites the dumb proletariat of the world. There are few others.

Even so called niche sports can be more wide spread than you could expect. Rugby is getting more popular and popular, France is losing football fans to rugby every year, no wonder their national team has been the best in Europe for some years lately.

BTW. NYC is also a major Tennis town, one of my best friends grew up in Queens with the McEnroes, a lot of talent there, US Open is also held there.


----------



## Skyrazer (Sep 9, 2009)

endymar said:


> Ok, American Football isn't really popular anywhere else but SuperBowl is the most watched sports event in the world.


Ummm, no. I'd say the soccer world cup is the most watched sporting event in the world, and by a long margin.


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

Rev Stickleback said:


> Is there a stadium with a track in the city?


Yes, there's one on Randall's Island:










Fully expandable...but not without a fight with the local community. Giants Stadium in the Meadowlands can accomodate any track and field event.


----------



## Hed_Kandi (Jan 23, 2006)

NYC would need to make some serious overhauls to its dilapidated infrastructure before it has a real shot at gaining the support of the IOC.


----------



## Dralcoffin (Feb 27, 2010)

Knitemplar said:


> Sao Paulo, Mumbai and Shanghai are the other three alpha-mega world cities that have yet to host an Olympics.


You're forgetting Chicago, which I would rather have the Olympics in over New York.


----------



## Knitemplar (Aug 16, 2008)

Skyrazer said:


> Ummm, no. I'd say the soccer world cup is the most watched sporting event in the world, and by a long margin.


The soccer World Cup is probably the MOST watched tournament, collectively -- like all 56 Games over the month, _around_ the world.

The Super Bowl is the MOST watched SINGLE (like 3 hours so) event, broadcast live in the STRONGEST TV market in the world (yes, in a handful of countries too). 

In terms of cost per TV advertising minute, 30 seconds of a SuperBowl commercial costs like $3.5 million to air. Whereas World Cup, because it is broadcast uniterrupted, does NOT command nearly as much because advertisers can only run their commercials at the beginning and during half-time. A minute on the World Cup finals in the US might cost 1/10th of that, like $500,000. They can't even run commercials afterwards because who would watch those? 

The SuperBowl and the Olympics are events made for TV (which is why NBC pays gazillions for them). World Cup soccer is not an event made for TV--and which is why you have all that distracting advertising that litter the stadium.


----------



## endymar (Sep 19, 2010)

Skyrazer said:


> Ummm, no. I'd say the soccer world cup is the most watched sporting event in the world, and by a long margin.


I remember some years ago the media analysts in Europe calculated that the Super Bowl (at that year) had more watchers than any World Cup game. I'm talking about a single game here. It was of course out of curiosity and I don't believe it never gets the same numbers again. Maybe the World Cup has passed but I'm not up to date with the data.

And of course whatever the FIFA (Fascist International Football Association) says is simply untrue. Their mob-like agenda is particularly obvious in smaller (and not the wealthiest) countries, for example basketball has been the most popular sport in the country where I grew up but in recent years FIFA has poured a lot of money into the local football machine and they went out with the mission to get all the kids into football practice and specially the talented ones, the rest of the sports can have the weak ones. There's strong football agenda and advertisement everywhere now. The other sports simply don't have a change. Team sports with a lot of potential are seriously under financed like volleyball and handball but football where's no achievements at all gets all the dough. Even basketball - a team sport where at times we've been actually good at - is in a bad shape.
Good old FIFA, out to force "outsiders" to be like everyone else. Forza Fascismo! Forza Monocoltura!


----------



## Skyrazer (Sep 9, 2009)

endymar said:


> I remember some years ago the media analysts in Europe calculated that the Super Bowl (at that year) had more watchers than any World Cup game. I'm talking about a single game here. It was of course out of curiosity and I don't believe it never gets the same numbers again. Maybe the World Cup has passed but I'm not up to date with the data.
> 
> And of course whatever the FIFA (Fascist International Football Association) says is simply untrue. Their mob-like agenda is particularly obvious in smaller (and not the wealthiest) countries, for example basketball has been the most popular sport in the country where I grew up but in recent years FIFA has poured a lot of money into the local football machine and they went out with the mission to get all the kids into football practice and specially the talented ones, the rest of the sports can have the weak ones. There's strong football agenda and advertisement everywhere now. The other sports simply don't have a change. Team sports with a lot of potential are seriously under financed like volleyball and handball but football where's no achievements at all gets all the dough. Even basketball - a team sport where at times we've been actually good at - is in a bad shape.
> Good old FIFA, out to force "outsiders" to be like everyone else. Forza Fascismo! Forza Monocoltura!


Agree about FIFA being a bunch of knobs, but I still think the world cup final would grab more viewers than the superbowl. Last I heard, the WC final averages near a billion viewers? Dunno what the superbowl averages, but I can't see it getting much higher than half a billion. Yeah the US is big, but outside of it (and I suppose Canada maybe?), who's gonna tune into the superbowl? Certainly not enough to push numbers up towards a billion.


----------



## oliver999 (Aug 4, 2006)

none of top 4 skylines has not held olympic before?


----------



## endymar (Sep 19, 2010)

Skyrazer said:


> Yeah the US is big, but outside of it (and I suppose Canada maybe?), who's gonna tune into the superbowl?


The funny thing is... the whole world. That's what I remember years ago, the analysts were surprised that so many people who don't really care or know about American football tuned in to watch the SuperBowl, just because of curiosity, everyone has heard about it... some big thing happening in US which affects the stock market and shuts down the country for one evening.


I'm not sure how the curiosity is right now but it was very big a few years ago all over the world. But it's a game that doesn't grab you instantly, you have to know the basic rules otherwise it's pointless and boring to watch. Interesting and very strategic game but I guess the hype is more about the show-element which again turns me off. I hate that corny stuff. All that cheerleading and half assed concerts. If they want to make it interesting they better use naked cheerleaders who dance around poles (which is not gonna happen in US) and I can watch a band after the game.


----------



## Rekarte (Mar 28, 2008)

Overdose of threads about Olympics:nuts:


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

Sarcasticity said:


> The world doesn't watch baseball, basketball, hockey, and football? As far as I know, basketball and baseball has a huge following worldwide.
> 
> FYI - New York Knicks won 2 championships since the 1950s, NY Giants has won 2 Superbowls in the last 5 years and 4 overall (one of the top teams in the NFL), NY Yankees is the most successful team in MLB, and NY Rangers and Islanders have won 4 Stanley Cup titles each with Rangers bidding for a spot on the Stanley Cup. It's an exciting time to be a NYer when it comes to sports this year. I wouldn't just laugh about it :cheers:


Compared to San Antonio, Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago to name a few. NY has won the NBA twice since 1950? wow, yep that JUST SCREAMS MECCA!

Rangers and Islanders haven't won jack shit since the ealy eighties. Once in 94 the Rangers got lucky, SCREAMS MECCA IN HOCKEY?

Giants have a long ways to go to be the number 1 football team in the USA, win a few more and you might be close to Greenbay or Dallas . Nice try again....

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

endymar said:


> The funny thing is... the whole world. That's what I remember years ago, the analysts were surprised that so many people who don't really care or know about American football tuned in to watch the SuperBowl, just because of curiosity, everyone has heard about it... some big thing happening in US which affects the stock market and shuts down the country for one evening.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how the curiosity is right now but it was very big a few years ago all over the world. But it's a game that doesn't grab you instantly, you have to know the basic rules otherwise it's pointless and boring to watch. Interesting and very strategic game but I guess the hype is more about the show-element which again turns me off. I hate that corny stuff. All that cheerleading and half assed concerts. If they want to make it interesting they better use naked cheerleaders who dance around poles (which is not gonna happen in US) and I can watch a band after the game.


The superbowl isn't even broadcast live here in Australia.....


----------



## endymar (Sep 19, 2010)

OZ doesn't have cable TV?


----------



## KingNick (Sep 23, 2010)

ssiguy2 said:


> NYC hasn't hosted the Olympics because they are smart.
> 
> Olympics are an obscene waste of funds especially the summer ones which tend to be much larger and have higher security.
> 
> ...


Seconded.


----------



## Sarcasticity (May 21, 2005)

Calvin W said:


> Compared to San Antonio, Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago to name a few. NY has won the NBA twice since 1950? wow, yep that JUST SCREAMS MECCA!
> 
> Rangers and Islanders haven't won jack shit since the ealy eighties. Once in 94 the Rangers got lucky, SCREAMS MECCA IN HOCKEY?
> 
> ...


You're obviously discrediting NY as a sports city. I don't agree with it being the mecca of any sports at all, but there's not many cities in the US that is home to quite successful and winning teams in different sports.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Calvin W said:


> Mecca of hockey? hahaha good one...
> Football? hahaha again.
> Basketball? One good team make them a mecca?
> Baseball, might be right on this one.
> ...


Agree. Maybe in baseball, but that's about it.



LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> New Yorkers are funny


+1


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

Calvin W said:


> Compared to San Antonio, Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago to name a few. NY has won the NBA twice since 1950? wow, yep that JUST SCREAMS MECCA!
> 
> Rangers and Islanders haven't won jack shit since the ealy eighties. Once in 94 the Rangers got lucky, SCREAMS MECCA IN HOCKEY?
> 
> ...


Calm down. 

While I don't necessarily agree that NYC is a "mecca" for any particular sport, I think the point is that our city is so over-saturated with top quality sports that we really don't need the Olympics to witness world class athletes. They are on display here virtually every day of the year. 10 pro teams across 5 different sports, US Open tennis, plenty of top-notch collegiate athletics, etc. F1 soon to come as well.

As for success, by my count the metro area teams have won 16 titles (13 if not counting the NJ teams) in the last 30 years. That's not too bad. In fact, I can't think of any other city that can match this record. So laugh all you want.

Having said all this, I still would have liked to see the Olympics here but only because it would have provided the impetus (I hope) for much needed infrastructure improvements. That's the only reason. 



Calvin W said:


> The superbowl isn't even broadcast live here in Australia.....


What you still don't have cable? Oh well... maybe some day.


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

Manila-X said:


> It seems that NYC is the only top tier global city that has not hosted The Summer Olympic games.
> 
> It's contemporaries such as Paris, Tokyo and currently London have hosted.
> 
> ...


The Olympics & Expos are expensive coming out parties for rising cities. NYC isn't the worlds biggest city, there a few that are bigger. But its the world's best known & most powerful city. 

NYC did host the World Expo in the mid-sixties. However, the Big Apple needs no intro. Most of all, the cost of expanding the subway or any type of infrastructure in NYC is simply beyond any realistic budget.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

the spliff fairy said:


> btw Istanbul is now one of the 10 most visited cities on the planet, by international tourists (Antalya is actually higher, third in the world after Paris and London, and with more international tourists than NYC). It's the only country with two cities in the top 10. Istanbul is very famous - not to US tourists who are pretty averse to travelling to Islamic countries, but the rest of the world yes.


Nobody was disputing that Istanbul is famous. I was only challenging isaidso's assertion that it has a higher profile than Chicago. In fact Chicago is a top 10 global city, as reflected in most city rankings, and is renowned world wide for a lot more things than Istanbul. Thats a fact. Istanbul's fame is akin to Athens' and Jerusalem's. Chicago's is more like Hong Kong's and Sydney's. Can you say that one is "higher profile" than the other?

As for the tourism figures, are we supposed to think then that Antalya is the third most famous city in the world?


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

-Corey- said:


> He just hates everything about America ^^.


I doubt that. 

Chicago's one of the cities I've lived & liked. 

Just comparing gross metropolitan products, given that the US is so much more developed than Turkey, I've no doubt that Chicago certainly beats Istanbul hands down. 

However, Istanbul's been a significant crossroads between Europe, Asia, & the Middle East for at least a thousand years, with a remarkable history that neither Chicago, nor any North American city, can claim. 

Nor is Istanbul a capital of financially ailing economy like Greece, Italy, or Spain. In addition to its cultural role, Turkey's emerged as a very key manufacturing & economic player in Eurasia.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

-Corey- said:


> He just hates everything about America ^^.


That seems to be your default response every time you don't agree with someone. Utter nonsense.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

the spliff fairy said:


> btw Istanbul is now one of the 10 most visited cities on the planet, by international tourists (Antalya is actually higher, third in the world after Paris and London, and with more international tourists than NYC). It's the only country with two cities in the top 10. Istanbul is very famous - not to US tourists who are pretty averse to travelling to Islamic countries, but the rest of the world yes.


You're going to hit a brick wall trying to convince most people from the US that Istanbul has a high profile around the world. Istanbul is just not on their radar. If people don't perceive something as prominent/relevant, it's difficult for them to accept that the rest of the world might. World travel is the only thing that puts things into proper perspective.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Fitzrovian said:


> Nobody was disputing that Istanbul is famous. I was only challenging isaidso's assertion that it has a higher profile than Chicago. In fact Chicago is a top 10 global city, as reflected in most city rankings, and is renowned world wide for a lot more things than Istanbul. Thats a fact. Istanbul's fame is akin to Athens' and Jerusalem's. Chicago's is more like Hong Kong's and Sydney's. Can you say that one is "higher profile" than the other?
> 
> As for the tourism figures, are we supposed to think then that Antalya is the third most famous city in the world?


Just saying, don't underestimate Istanbul. Chicago may be richer, with a higher profile in *the US*, but Istanbul is very historic, cultural, and contemporary with a huge draw for the rest of the world. It's definitely the most beautiful megacity alongside Paris (and the friendliest), and in 2006 Newsweek named it the coolest city in the world. Its famously a cross between Rome, Damascus and San Francisco both physically and culturally.

Visitors are drawn to the history (Byzantine, Ottoman, Turkish), culture (East meets West, old vs new n all that), streetlife, food, beaches and the fact you can visit a never colonised, non-Western city that's actually in the West.

Check it out here, there's many scenes you just can't replicate anywhere else, especially for a city of 14 million (metro 18 million), caught between worlds. The plurality right now is amazing:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=92151693#post92151693


.


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

isaidso said:


> That seems to be your default response every time you don't agree with someone. Utter nonsense.


First of all, I am not the one talking nonsense. You should provide some facts and references to back up your claims.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

isaidso said:


> You're going to hit a brick wall trying to convince most people from the US that Istanbul has a high profile around the world. Istanbul is just not on their radar. If people don't perceive something as prominent/relevant, it's difficult for them to accept that the rest of the world might. World travel is the only thing that puts things into proper perspective.


So basically your rebuttal is "You are just a dumb American whereas I am an enlightened, well-traveled Canadian who knows better". That's the best you can do?

FWIW, I did not grow up in N. America (or Western Europe), have lived in four different countries, and traveled the world. I have been to Istanbul... so no need for pictures, spliff fairy. I can't tell you that I took surveys on which of these two cities has a higher profile (as isaidso seems to have done since he sounds like such an authority)... But I can tell you that even while growing up in another part of the world Chicago was much more on my radar than Istanbul. That's because Chicago has a much more prominent role in contemporary popular culture and happens to be one of the most important cities in the most culturally dominant country in the world. Anyone who has heard of Michael Jordan or has ever seen a John Hughes or Jim Belushi movie (or more recently a Vince Vaughn movie) has a mental picture of Chicago. Same for anyone who takes any interest in music, modern architecture or global business affairs. And that kinda stuff tends to register with people a lot more than which city ruled the world 700 years ago.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

bayviews said:


> However, Istanbul's been a significant crossroads between Europe, Asia, & the Middle East for at least a thousand years, with a remarkable history that neither Chicago, nor any North American city, can claim.


No doubt. But by that logic Istanbul should also have a higher profile than NYC. I can't imagine that anyone would believe that.



bayviews said:


> Nor is Istanbul a capital of financially ailing economy like Greece, Italy, or Spain. In addition to its cultural role, Turkey's emerged as a very key manufacturing & economic player in Eurasia.


Actually I would have an easier time swallowing the claim that Istanbul was a city of such high profile if it was in Spain or Italy. The fact that it is in Turkey, a still relatively poor country that has been an insigficant player in world affairs since the fall of the Ottoman Empire and that most people don't know much about, hardly bolsters the claim.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Look at it from a European or Middle Eastern viewpoint - its the biggest city of either region, and the second or third biggest visitor destination for them (1.1 billion). The country as a whole is the most popular destination for tourists from either region. It's also increasingly popular for Asians and North Africans.

Truth be told it was off the radar even ten years ago, but since then it's made huge leaps n bounds. It's basically the fastest growing tourism destination in the world:

http://www.istanbulview.com/istanbul-tourist-destination/

(and to cope with it, the world's fastest growing airport)

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel...f-worlds-fastestgrowing-airports-2330729.html

for the 7th fastest growing metro in the world (bear in mind its already a megacity with 18 million):

http://www.istanbulview.com/istanbul-ranks-worlds-7th-fastest-growing-metro-area/

In short, zeitgest. The trials and tribulations of a city once again in a global spotlight:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/fast_track/8932511.stm


.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

the spliff fairy said:


> Look at it from a European or Middle Eastern viewpoint - its the biggest city of either region, and the second or third biggest visitor destination for them (1.1 billion). It's also increasingly popular for Asians and North Africans.
> 
> Truth be told it was off the radar even ten years ago, but since then it's made huge leaps n bounds. It's basically the fastest growing tourism destination in the world:
> 
> ...


Istanbul is a great city, no doubt, and its profile is rising. But global perceptions don't change overnight. 

You are boasting about Istanbul's rapidly growing airport... You do realize that it still handles about 30 million less than O'Hare (which for many years was the busiest airport in the world)? Just putting things in perspective...

Istanbul is a great city and it might be fair to say that its global profile is actually trailing its increasing dynamism, attractions and urban qualities. But you also have to remember that for most of the 20th century Turkey was considered a poor backwater while Chicago was (and remains) a global industrial powerhouse and transportation hub in the wealthiest country in the world. We have to keep this context in mind when making these comparisons.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

-and the vast majority of O'Hare is domestic and connecting flights. Not much more than a million are foreign passengers. - Istanbul still gets nearly 8x more international visitors.

I still maintain Chicago has a higher profile in North America, pop 500 million. But Istanbul has a higher profile in Europe and the Middle East, at the very least, pop 1.1 billion.

Au contraire global perceptions _do _ change overnight (just look at Dubai or Shanghai). From the millennium when the entire country had barely 7 million tourists to over 30 million today (a jump from 30th to 6th), city-wise from 16th position 5 years ago to top 10 today , and possibly top 3 this year with the international 'shopping festival', overtaking sister city Antalya and NYC .

It's also Europes hottest property market because of it:

http://www.easier.com/84792-istanbul-foreign-tourist-arrivals.html


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

the spliff fairy said:


> -and the vast majority of O'Hare is domestic and connecting flights. Not much more than a million are foreign passengers. - Istanbul still gets nearly 8x more international visitors.
> 
> I still maintain Chicago has a higher profile in North America, pop 500 million. But Istanbul has a higher profile in Europe and the Middle East, at the very least, pop 1.1 billion.
> 
> ...


Turkey is in a strategic location surrounded by other countries on all sides. It's right next to Europe. It's also still relatively cheap which makes it more attractive for international tourists. Chicago is in the middle of the US, with oceans on both sides and only one foreign country within 2,000km.

Besides I am not sure how much international tourism figures have to do with what we are discussing anyway. Didn't you post upthread that Antalya is the third most visited city in the world? A city that many people have never heard of...


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

yeah sure, but Antalya is a different kind of tourism to Istanbul. People are attracted to Antalya for the local sun sea n sex, the same with the Costa del Sol. Theyre not there for the local culture so much, or the city of Antalya itself, pretty as it is. Whereas people go to Istanbul for Istanbul - eg culture, arts, food and nightlife. It's iconic domes, its famed zeitgeist, its fantastic cuisine, its vast bazaars, its history on every corner. They go there to walk its streets, see its monuments and immerse themselves in its culture. City break not package holiday crowd.

That is iconic and high profile - the beaches of Antalya could be called 'iconic', but the city isn't. In short people go to Istanbul because of the high profile of the city, they go to Antalya because of the good value of its accommodation.


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

Fitzrovian said:


> No doubt. But by that logic Istanbul should also have a higher profile than NYC. I can't imagine that anyone would believe that.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I would have an easier time swallowing the claim that Istanbul was a city of such high profile if it was in Spain or Italy. The fact that it is in Turkey, a still relatively poor country that has been an insigficant player in world affairs since the fall of the Ottoman Empire and that most people don't know much about, hardly bolsters the claim.


Sounds like some have an outdated image of Turkey. Yeah it has a remarkable history like Greece or Italy. But with a significant differeance. 

Maybe half or more of the trucks & buses you see in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, North Africa, even cities in East Asia & Western Europe are made in Turkey. 

How much stuff is made Athens these days. Aside from repayment schedule negotiation. Albeit the Greeks used to make & own a lot of tankers & other ships, etc, maybe they still do. For that matter not even Chicago, which used to turn out a lot of stuff, turns out a lot of stuff these days.


----------



## citybus (Oct 22, 2008)

Istanbul is getting sold short here, the fact that it straddles two continents raises it's profile very high. 'Third world' is a bit harsh. Maybe people are too hung up about religion, which is weird as Turkey is one of the most secular Muslim countries. And come on, the vast majority of Europeans, Asians & Africans wouldn't know what city Oprah is from.

Don't get over-enthusiastic about the Olympics. Newham might be one of the poorest borough's in England but rather than regenerate the area for the existing residents they are looking to kick them out and replace with the wealthy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17821018
http://eastendhowler.wordpress.com/2010/03/02/flushing-out-the-carpenters/


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

the spliff fairy said:


> yeah sure, but Antalya is a different kind of tourism to Istanbul. People are attracted to Antalya for the local sun sea n sex, the same with the Costa del Sol. Theyre not there for the local culture so much, or the city of Antalya itself, pretty as it is. Whereas people go to Istanbul for Istanbul - eg culture, arts, food and nightlife. It's iconic domes, its famed zeitgeist, its fantastic cuisine, its vast bazaars, its history on every corner. They go there to walk its streets, see its monuments and immerse themselves in its culture. City break not package holiday crowd.
> 
> That is iconic and high profile - the beaches of Antalya could be called 'iconic', but the city isn't. In short people go to Istanbul because of the high profile of the city, they go to Antalya because of the good value of its accommodation.


So you agree with me then that tourist figures alone do not tell the whole story? Good, we are getting somewhere . 

Istanbul is at the cross-roads of Europe and Asia, within a weekend trip distance from most of Europe (international tourist market of 600 million+), and with the proliferation of budget airlines it has become an increasingly attractive tourist destination. For Chicago the only easily accessible source of international tourists is a country of less than 40 million people.

That's not to say that Istanbul is not a more interesting tourist destination. I think it very well may be. But that does not necessarily translate into a higher global profile. I believe Tokyo is not even in the top 10 in international tourist rankings. But it is a top 4-5 global city by almost every measure.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

citybus said:


> Istanbul is getting sold short here, the fact that it straddles two continents raises it's profile very high. 'Third world' is a bit harsh. Maybe people are too hung up about religion, which is weird as Turkey is one of the most secular Muslim countries. And come on, the vast majority of Europeans, Asians & Africans wouldn't know what city Oprah is from.
> 
> Don't get over-enthusiastic about the Olympics. Newham might be one of the poorest borough's in England but rather than regenerate the area for the existing residents they are looking to kick them out and replace with the wealthy.
> 
> ...



Istanbul is a great city. But I still think that most people don't know much about it.

As for Chicago and Oprah... you may be right. Would you say the same about Michael Jordan?


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

Fitzrovian said:


> Istanbul is a great city. But I still think that most people don't know much about it.
> 
> As for Chicago and Oprah... you may be right. Would you say the same about Michael Jordan?


...or Barack Obama? And due to her popularity, I think Oprah is the one getting sold short.


----------



## citybus (Oct 22, 2008)

Oprah is still famous despite the fact that (in the UK at least) her show hasn't been high profile in the last decade or so (assuming it's even broadcast anymore). Fame aside, on this side of the Atlantic I don't think she is commonly associated with any American city in particular. As for Michael Jordan, everyone knows he's a basketball player and most would know he was in the Bulls- but in my mind he's not really associated with the city. The whole 1990's phase of people wearing Chicago Bull tops in Europe was a bit of a fad, I would have to question whether those who did it 15 years ago are still clued up on the game now. Al Capone must be associated with the city 1000 times more than Jordan.


----------



## krnboy1009 (Aug 9, 2011)

Did Toronto ever host one? I'd say they are a top tier global city.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

citybus said:


> Oprah is still famous despite the fact that (in the UK at least) her show hasn't been high profile in the last decade or so (assuming it's even broadcast anymore). Fame aside, on this side of the Atlantic I don't think she is commonly associated with any American city in particular. As for Michael Jordan, everyone knows he's a basketball player and most would know he was in the Bulls- but in my mind he's not really associated with the city. The whole 1990's phase of people wearing Chicago Bull tops in Europe was a bit of a fad, I would have to question whether those who did it 15 years ago are still clued up on the game now. Al Capone must be associated with the city 1000 times more than Jordan.


I don't know.... I think anyone who takes even a casual interest in sports - and probably even most of those that don't - have heard of Michael Jordan and he is immediately associated with Chicago almost as much as Pele is associated with Brazil and Maradona with Argentina. I'd say he is almost on par with Al Capone and Barack Obama both in terms of global fame and instant association with Chicago. Basketball's popularity has been growing over the last couple of decades and Asia in particular is basketball crazy today.

Now can anyone name an iconic, internationally-recognized export from Istanbul from the last 100 years? I can't.


----------



## Rinchinlhumbe (Dec 20, 2008)

krnboy1009 said:


> Did Toronto ever host one? I'd say they are a top tier global city.


no, Montreal 1976, Calgary 1988 and Vancouver 1804 did it for Canada.


----------



## Toronto3 (Sep 13, 2011)

Ummm... I think Vancouver held the olympics quite a bit more recently.. Ehem... 2010


----------



## Rinchinlhumbe (Dec 20, 2008)

Toronto3 said:


> Ummm... I think Vancouver held the olympics quite a bit more recently.. Ehem... 2010


yes, youre right. Sry
2010 AD


----------



## Blackpool88 (Nov 15, 2007)

I wouldn't have said Toronto was a top tier global city based on what i felt when I visited.

And also I think you should give fitzrovian a break, Chicago certainly is one of the most high profile cities in the world. Whether it's more so than Istanbul is completely subjective so there's not much point debating it. Both great cities.


----------



## Sarcasticity (May 21, 2005)

Istanbul is more likely to host the Olympics than Chicago. But I wouldn't discredit Chicago as a city.


----------



## Guest (Jun 9, 2012)

Fitzrovian said:


> I don't know.... I think anyone who takes even a casual interest in sports - and probably even most of those that don't - have heard of Michael Jordan and he is immediately associated with Chicago almost as much as Pele is associated with Brazil and Maradona with Argentina. I'd say he is almost on par with Al Capone and Barack Obama both in terms of global fame and instant association with Chicago. Basketball's popularity has been growing over the last couple of decades and Asia in particular is basketball crazy today.
> 
> Now can anyone name an iconic, internationally-recognized export from Istanbul from the last 100 years? I can't.


Distant continents, different cultures...

M.Jordan is OK but most of people don't know in this part of the world Al Capone and Obama are from Chicago.. Do you know where Angela Merkel was born..

For example, did you ever heard the name of Ataturk, Tarkan, Orhan Pamuk, Hakan Sukur, Naim Suleymanoglu, Galatasaray, Fenerbahce, Murat Gunak, Mehmet Ali Agca wallbash But I think It is normal for you not to know them. As I said, distant continents. 

I used to see tourists from USA in Istanbul before Iraq war. After the war It is hard to see. Maybe they think Istanbul is like Baghdad city and they are afraid of this city..:nuts:


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

Blackpool88 said:


> I wouldn't have said Toronto was a top tier global city based on what i felt when I visited.
> 
> And also I think you should give fitzrovian a break, Chicago certainly is one of the most high profile cities in the world. Whether it's more so than Istanbul is completely subjective so there's not much point debating it. Both great cities.


Thank you. I have nothing against Istanbul, its a fantastic city, but it seemed to me that Chicago was getting shortchanged a bit for a city that is routinely ranked as a top 10 global city and is world renowned on quite a few scores. I don't how much it has to do with reflexive anti-Americanism, but the continuous insinuations that only an insular North American could view Chicago as a more high profile city certainly reeked of it. Ultimately I agree with you though. It is subjective. What does "high profile" mean anyway and how do you measure it? Who is the target audience? Both are great cities, let's just leave it at that.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

uzunix said:


> Distant continents, different cultures...
> 
> M.Jordan is OK but most of people don't know in this part of the world Al Capone and Obama are from Chicago.. Do you know where Angela Merkel was born..
> 
> ...


Yeah, very few people anywhere in the world (outside of a few neighboring countries) have heard any of these names... except for Fenerbahce and Galatasaray for football fans in Europe. I think Jordan, Al Capone and Obama - however you wanna rank them - register much much higher. No disrespect mate, but you are comparing a nation that most people still don't know much about to the most culturally dominant country in the world, speaking English language, beaming 24hr news networks around the world, and producing the most popular movies and shows. It's not really an apples to apples comparison. Same for Obama vs. Merkel.


----------



## Guest (Jun 9, 2012)

I'm not comparing any countries, each country has its own values. I'm a fan of American movies, NYC, space techs and so on. :cheers:

I want to say everyone has a different perspective, something is important to you but it is not for someone else. But like you said Media, advertising to the world is important about this. That is like some people think titanic was just a movie. Maybe if there isn't a movie about it, It will be less known as the ship "Empress of Ireland"


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Fitzrovian said:


> So you agree with me then that tourist figures alone do not tell the whole story? Good, we are getting somewhere .
> 
> Istanbul is at the cross-roads of Europe and Asia, within a weekend trip distance from most of Europe (international tourist market of 600 million+), and with the proliferation of budget airlines it has become an increasingly attractive tourist destination. For Chicago the only easily accessible source of international tourists is a country of less than 40 million people.
> 
> That's not to say that Istanbul is not a more interesting tourist destination. I think it very well may be. But that does not necessarily translate into a higher global profile. I believe Tokyo is not even in the top 10 in international tourist rankings. But it is a top 4-5 global city by almost every measure.


Haha - dont try and obfuscate the argument or put words in my mouth. I said the difference is that people swarm to Antalya for the surrounding beaches, they swarm to Istanbul for Istanbul, the city. That's the difference, and I think you get that.

Seriously, Istanbul from your perspective doesn't do it justice. Its the biggest city in Europe (and most populous nation after Russia), and marginally the second or third biggest chosen destination (London, Paris and Istanbul draw almost the same amounts of Europeans and change places depending on the year) - that's about 740 million of them. As for Middle Easterners it's also their biggest city, and the second biggest destination for them too (after Dubai) - thats for 400 million. Not to mention the hordes of tourists from East and South Asia and its high profile to the rest of the Islamic world (1 billion muslims).

Not just tourism, but in the mindset of many Europeans, Middle Easterners and North Africans it was the ruling city for millennia of our histories thanks to the Roman, Byzantine, Latin and Ottoman Empires, and the most important city in either region for those centuries. It's how we see Rome, Athens, Alexandria and Carthage - Constantinople would be up there with them. Our national costumes from rural Greece to 19th Century ballgowns, the dress of the French aristocracy to the heyday of the Russian czars, stem from that city, we even started wedding ourselves in Ottoman lace and white dresses, to this day - stuff youd think was quintessentially European to an outsider. That of course is just one facet of the influence. From tulip fever to Mediterranean cuisine to today's Islamic European countries (populations nearing 60 million) Istanbul/ Constantinople left quite a legacy, the capital in many guises of multiple, continent spanning empires.

Also ad nauseum, its a gateway. Straddling both continents, and still the front door to Europe in this modern world, the vast doorway to trade from factory Asia pulsing out truckloads of Europe's imports, illicit trades, immigrants and the bridge to our outsourced factories in former colonies. They may well just be stopping through Istanbul, but in the collective mindset, this city is the gateway, every heavy goods vehicle you see on the highway, every immigrant selling their wares, every t-shirt you wear, every line you snort. It always has been as such - this is where Marco Polo returned with tales of the wonderments of Asia, where the Arab, Indian and Chinese sciences filtered into Europe, and forever changed it, where the Great Plague finally entered after decimating the rest of the known world, where the Romans founded their newer and greater capital, as well as successively the great religious centre for all Christians and all Muslims.

In short its become very high profile again, especially recently. In most European libraries youll find several guides (and novels) set in Istanbul - there is a very definite romance to the city thanks to its past, but rarely one on Chicago Im afraid. Of course you could say the opposite is true in any American library but for Europe and the entire Islamic world this would be the rule. That counts for 3.5x as many North Americans already.

As for Chicagoan celebrities, they really, really don't feature or register hereabouts as coming from their hometown. They may be famous, but not for where they come from. I think the most famous Chicagoan would be Al Capone, but even then most kids still think he was New Yorker, as would they the skyline.

I think Chicago is a famous, powerful and rich city, but it falls short of selling itself outside North America. I don't think outside the US the large majority of people would be able to name a single monument there, or recognise one (undeservedly). Even more so it's been edged out by LA, especially thanks to Hollywood. I think LA has a higher profile of either Chicago, or Istanbul.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

the spliff fairy said:


> Haha - dont try and obfuscate the argument or put words in my mouth. I said the difference is that people swarm to Antalya for the beaches, they swarm to Istanbul for Istanbul, the city. That's the difference, and I think you get that.
> 
> Seriously, Istanbul from your perspective doesn't do it justice. Its the biggest city in Europe (and most populous nation after Russia), and marginally the second or third biggest chosen destination (London, Paris and Istanbul draw almost the same amounts of Europeans and change places depending on the year) - that's about 730 million of them. As for Middle Easterners it's also their biggest city, and the second biggest destination for them too (after Dubai) - thats for 400 million. Not to mention the hordes of tourists from East and South Asia and its high profile to the rest of the Islamic world (1 billion muslims).
> 
> ...


Honestly mate, I think this debate has run its course. We are both products of our upbringing and subjective perceptions so I don't think we will be able to convince each other.

I have already addressed the tourism argument: the more compelling tourist destination is not always a higher profile city. Look at those rankings... Dubai and Kuala Lampur draw more than Tokyo. Surely you wouldnt consider them higher profile cities?

Ultimately this comes down to historical significance vs. contemporary relevance. You give greater weight to the former and I to the latter. We'll just have to agree to disagree.



the spliff fairy said:


> Not just tourism, but in the mindset of many Europeans, Middle Easterners and North Africans it was the ruling city for centuries of our histories thanks to the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires, and the most important city in either region for those centuries. _*It's how we see Rome, Athens, Alexandria and Carthage - Constantinople would be up there with them. *_


Exactly. And none of those cities are especially high profile today (except for Rome which is the home of Catholic church and the capital of one of the most popular and iconic countries in the world). I would put Istanbul roughly at the level of Athens, but both a notch or two below cities like LA, Chicago and Sydney.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

yes, Id very much differ. Istanbul is not just famous for or in the past, it's famous now-now (_the_ city to be in, to visit, to invest in, to write and think about). Sure I can account for my European viewpoint of things, and you yours, but I don't think we should be selling either as universal.

I still say at the least for 730 million Europeans and 1 billion Muslims, Istanbul, as their largest or greatest city, and their former empirical and cultural capital at one time, is much higher profile than Chicago for them.

Agree to disagree then.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

To be frank, I don't think either city has that high a profile in much of the world. I've never heard Istanbul be described as "the" city for anything.

I agree with what was said earlier, that in the UK at least, Chicago would be most readily associated with Al Capone. The lack of popularity for basketball would make most unable to name the team Jordan played for.

The Blues Brothers would probably get a more of a name-check for the city.


I'm not sure the average (or below average, maybe) guy on the street would see too much spring to mind when Istanbul is mentioned. Galatasaray maybe. Stereotypes of carpet sellers. Very few famous people.

Typically people will know very little about either city unless they've had reason to look into the city for any reason.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Yeah well it's not like the whole of Europe goes around thinking about Istanbul every waking second, but its definitely a higher profile city compared to Chicago imo. I agree very few would be able to name an Istanbouli - let alone Turkish - celebrity, but the average bloke would be able to recognise the city or its monuments (read: Hagia Sophia or Blue Mosque, or cliched shot of domes over the Bosphurus/ skyline) , less than would for Chicago (though of course everyone would know of Chicago, a big city in the US with skyscrapers). Istanbul is the second or third most popular choice of destination for Europeans. As many of us visit Istanbul as we do Paris or London on a given year nowadays.

I reckon most Central and Eastern Europeans would know more about Istanbul than their Western European counterparts due to the proximity and history - Turkey's a big geopolitical player in their backyard there, not to even mention the history. - However the Western European contingent do make up the biggest number of visitors in the recent tourist boom - although they're from a specific range- young, affluent and there for the culture (city break). It measures markedly less on the radar if you're not in your twenties.

Russians are marginally the biggest group (12%). Second place are the Germans, then the Brits, Iranians, Bulgarians, Dutch, French, Italians and Syrians. Most people are exclusively in their twenties, with a big drop off for older people or children (although that's the same for almost every city). The East Asians buck the trend whom are mostly in their thirties - once the biggest contingent merely 5 years ago, theyve now been far surpassed. In short its only taken 6/7 years for the city to (re)surge forward and sell itself off as the place to _be_. Kind of what you see happening nowadays to Berlin.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

the spliff fairy said:


> Yeah well it's not like the whole of Europe goes around thinking about Istanbul every waking second, but its definitely a higher profile city compared to Chicago imo. I agree very few would be able to name an Istanbouli - let alone Turkish - celebrity, but the average bloke would be able to recognise the city or its monuments (read: Hagia Sophia or Blue Mosque, or cliched shot of domes over the Bosphurus/ skyline) , less than would for Chicago (though of course everyone would know of Chicago, a big city in the US with skyscrapers). Istanbul is the second or third most popular choice of destination for Europeans. As many of us visit Istanbul as we do Paris or London on a given year nowadays.
> 
> I reckon most Central and Eastern Europeans would know more about Istanbul than their Western European counterparts due to the proximity and history - Turkey's a big geopolitical player in their backyard there, not to even mention the history. - However the Western European contingent do make up the biggest number of visitors in the recent tourist boom - although they're from a specific range- young, affluent and there for the culture (city break). It measures markedly less on the radar if you're not in your twenties.
> 
> Russians are marginally the biggest group (12%). Second place are the Germans, then the Brits, Iranians, Bulgarians, Dutch, French, Italians and Syrians. Most people are exclusively in their twenties, with a big drop off for older people or children (although that's the same for almost every city). The East Asians buck the trend whom are mostly in their thirties - once the biggest contingent merely 5 years ago, theyve now been far surpassed. In short its only taken 6/7 years for the city to (re)surge forward and sell itself off as the place to _be_. Kind of what you see happening nowadays to Berlin.


An average bloke would be able to recognize the Blue Mosque?? I very much doubt it, but if that's the case then he should most certainly recognize Sears Tower (the tallest building in the world for over 30 years) or the Chicago skyline that has been featured in countless Hollywood blockbusters.

Also, I have already pointed out the fallacy of looking at tourist figures but you just don't wanna hear me. Think of it another way: what percentage of Europe's total population has ever been to Istanbul? Very low. Point being that Istanbul's tourist figures, though impressive, are not representative of what your "average bloke" knows. Your average bloke is much more likely to have seen SourceCode or Ferris Bueller's Day Off or the Fugitive - each one like a two hour advert for Chicago -- than to have ever visited Istanbul.

Lastly, you mentioned Eastern Europe. This is a part of the world I am quite familiar with and I can tell you that if you think Istanbul has a higher profile there you'd be wrong. Yes, they are closer to Istanbul and therefore visit it in large numbers but, on the whole, they take a lot more interest in everything American (basketball, ice hockey, movies, music etc) than anything Turkish.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

Okay fellas, this website answers our query:

http://www.simonanholt.com/Research/cities-index.aspx

On the question of how highly you rank the overall importance of a city, people in the following countries ranked Chicago and Istanbul as follows out of 50 cities (I list _*Chicago first and Istanbul second*_):

Argentina (19, 37)
China (17, 41)
France (28, 38)
India (14, 37)
Japan (18, 34)
Russia (33, 29)
S. Africa (17, 45)

You can search other countries in the link. Europe looks pretty inconclusive but every other neutral country I searched is not even close.

Now spliff fairy - will you STFU already? (I tease  )


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Er ok mate, 20,000 people out of 7 billion, interviewed online, versus 8 million more who vote with their feet every year (nearly 8x more than Chicago I may add). I could go on about the strata of people who will do long online surveys, but hey.

-And what about all the rest of the world (read: Islamic countries notably) that aren't included out of these 20 countries, that would boost the score? -Note also that each country here votes its own capital and cities as the most 'important' in the world. If this truly was representative of the globe Beijing and Mumbai would vy for the top position, NYC comes in as 4th - 6th.

Dont want to be blunt but I seriously don't know anyone who knows the name of the Sears/ Willis Tower, or can recognise it other than us online fans. And I know almost everyone who can recognise a pic of the Hagia Sophia or Blue Mosque as being Istanbul, even if they couldn't even name the building (from a European perspective anyway). Cliche shot as follows:











Chicago attracts only 1.1 million international visitors out of 40-45 million domestic ones, and 84 million yearly air passengers. 96% of international visitors to the country don't bother (bear in mind US is the worlds second largest tourist destination). Sure it's further away from the main marker that is NYC, but so is Vegas, Miami, LA etc.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...ets-sights-overseas-visitors-warren-wilkinson
_
"Chicago also lags a number of other major U.S. cities when it comes to international visitors, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce, with 1.1 million overseas visitors in 2010, or 4.3 percent of all international visitors to the United States. That places it 10th in overseas tourists, behind cities like Las Vegas and Boston as well as New York, which led all U.S. cities with 8.5 million, or 32.1 percent, of all international visitors."_

This hints to me that for all its power and richness in global rankings, and popularity in the US, Chicago's profile abroad is lower than expected - the idea is that it's indeed one of those powerful American cities with a skyline, but noone much knows about the city itself,- any of its monuments, its culture, streets, history or even its celebrities, famous as they are, theyre not exactly dubbed Chicagoan, just American.


In the greater context of things... picking an Olympic choice for a high profile city - the amount of international visitors it can attract is pretty high up there imo. To attract millions of visitors, each one willing to spend hundreds just to get there is also quite an indicator. -Seriously, how much more of an international profile would you want if your city went from completely off the radar to 3rd most visited city in the world and (not for beaches, nor theme parks etc) within a couple of years?


----------



## jotrespo (Aug 30, 2010)

i hpe one day new york gets the olympics. that would be grea for the city and its people


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

the spliff fairy said:


> -And what about all the rest of the world (read: Islamic countries notably) that aren't included out of these 20 countries, that would boost the score? -


It wouldn't boost anything, it would only show what people i_n those countries_ think. Yup, people in Muslim countries probably see Istanbul as higher profile. I conceded that at the outset... this discussion has moved to the rest of the world since you and isaidso have been so insistent that Istanbul is much higher profile everywhere outside of North America. The survey results clearly show otherwise.




the spliff fairy said:


> Note also that each country here votes its own capital and cities as the most 'important' in the world. If this truly was representative of the globe Beijing and Mumbai would vy for the top position, NYC comes in as 4th - 6th.


No they wouldn't because people in other countries view NY much higher. And yes, you are right every country lists its top cities first - which actually makes sense as it reflects which cities are most important for people in those countries. Think about it. If you live in China then of course Shanghai and Beijing would be the most important cities for you. As a result of the "home country first" effect, most cities typically appear slightly lower than they would in an objective survey. But once you average out the results of all countries, they fall into place as they should.



the spliff fairy said:


> Chicago attracts only 1.1 million international visitors out of 40-45 million domestic ones, and 84 million yearly air passengers. 96% of international visitors to the country don't bother (bear in mind US is the worlds second largest tourist destination). Sure it's further away from the main marker that is NYC, but so is Vegas, Miami, LA etc


Here you go again with tourist figures... Damn you are stubborn.

So Vegas is a more high profile city than Chicago and Kuala Lampur is more high profile than Tokyo? Okay mate :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## yankeesfan1000 (Aug 11, 2010)

Nikonov_Ivan said:


> Great! I hope that New York will have olympics 2024. And what about Ne New York Jets stadium? I read, that it could be built on the place of hudson yards( phase 2) Is this project still alive?


No. Won't happen. The Jets and Giants just built a new stadium.


----------



## yankeesfan1000 (Aug 11, 2010)

Double post.


----------



## Nikonov_Ivan (Aug 25, 2011)

yankeesfan1000 said:


> No. Won't happen. The Jets and Giants just built a new stadium.


Why? Why New York can't have 2024 olympics?
I mean this stadium:


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

desertpunk said:


> The USOC are nudging New York to bid. Philadelphia, Los Angeles and Dallas are planning bids.


I still believe New York this time could have a great chance in hosting the Games!!


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

Nikonov_Ivan said:


> Great! I hope that New York will have olympics 2024. And what about Ne New York Jets stadium? I read, that it could be built on the place of hudson yards( phase 2) Is this project still alive?


That stadium is dead forever. $9+ billion in office and residential towers are going into that site (Hudson Yards).


----------



## Nikonov_Ivan (Aug 25, 2011)

^^ But why? This stadium ciuld be profitable. There will be no tenets for office towers...


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

Nikonov_Ivan said:


> ^^ But why? This stadium ciuld be profitable. There will be no tenets for office towers...


One tower has a tennant and construction begins this fall. The rest of the development will go in by 2020. The stadium was considered too cramped and costly by many for an Olympic Stadium anyway. If NYC ever holds the games, new stadiums will probably go into Flushing Meadows.


----------



## Nikonov_Ivan (Aug 25, 2011)

Ok, but why there are no tenants for 2 and 3 WTC, tower verre, 15 pen, girasole etc?


----------



## UrbanImpact (Jan 10, 2005)

Nikonov_Ivan said:


> Ok, but why there are no tenants for 2 and 3 WTC, tower verre, 15 pen, girasole etc?


Tower Verre is residential, so it would have tenants, and is going to get built. The girasole has to wait till the construction of the subway is done. Many of the buildings over the rail yards where the stadium was going to be built are residential as well.

As far as the commercial tenants for the other buildings you mention, right now there are many firms looking for space in the future. Many of them will get built in some form.


----------



## Nikonov_Ivan (Aug 25, 2011)

^^ It is great! But why there are no tenants forn 2 and 3 WTC, such huge and famous project( excuse me for offtopic)???


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

Nikonov_Ivan said:


> ^^ It is great! But why there are no tenants forn 2 and 3 WTC, such huge and famous project( excuse me for offtopic)???


People are afraid to touch that site , most of 1 & 4 will be Govt either Federal or Regional. Companies in Lower Manhattan are slowly leaving for Jersey City and Newark which have become more attractive over the years with or without incentives to move. Its cheaper on the Jersey Side , hence why there isn't a big market for Downtown Office space as there once was. Theres a strong market for Residential , but that's relativity untouched south of Canal.


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

As for who should get the Olympics Id be happy with the Following cities in North America...

Philadelphia
Minneapolis - St. Paul 
Denver
Chicago
Portland
Seattle
St. Louis
San Francisco
Winnipeg 
Calgary

Cities that should host the World Cup

Boston
Philadelphia
Newark
St. Louis
Houston
Portland
Seattle
LA 
San Diego
Toronto
Montreal


----------



## eomer (Nov 15, 2003)

Nexis said:


> As for who should get the Olympics Id be happy with the Following cities in North America...
> 
> Philadelphia
> Minneapolis - St. Paul
> ...


If you consider Summer games only, Chicago is the only one in your list that got a chance. In north America, there are 3 cities that never hosted summer olympics and could get them in the futur: New York, Chicago and Toronto.


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

eomer said:


> If you consider Summer games only, Chicago is the only one in your list that got a chance. In north America, there are 3 cities that never hosted summer olympics and could get them in the futur: New York, Chicago and Toronto.


Toronto and New York might be hard to sell to the people after the recent slue of Debt from past host cities including London. Chicago wouldn't care about that , same with the rest of those cities... Why does it have to be the Top cities? Why can't it be the second tier cities? I thought the Olympics was about promoting cities? Seattle is a rising star on the world stage....so is Philadelphia , which is considered an extension of NYC by some. SF was favored by the IOC... The Twin Cities , Winnipeg and Calgary can all host the games.


----------



## yankeesfan1000 (Aug 11, 2010)

Nikonov_Ivan said:


> ^^ It is great! But why there are no tenants forn 2 and 3 WTC, such huge and famous project( excuse me for offtopic)???


The election is a big hinderance. Companies just want a better idea of their future tax liabilities, health care, corporate tax liabilities, etc. 

There was an exodus from Lower Manhattan right after 911, but that's changed. Goldman moved a lot of their traders to NJ, and the traders basically revolted and now Goldman's moving their employees into an older building in Lower Manhattan instead of a newer building in Jersey City. UBS also wants to leave Stamford because being there hurts their ability to recruit top talent. So after 911 companies were moving out of the city, but that's largely reversed.

Edit: Just saw this on TheRealDeal, NYC outpaces suburbs in office market recovery, and is relevant to my point.


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

*Are Olympics in the cards for NYC in 2024?*

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. - *Should New York City mount another Olympic bid?*
Seven years after losing the 2012 Games to London, the Big Apple is being mentioned by the United State Olympic Committee (USOC) as a possible contender for the 2024 Summer Games.
And the international climate could be right for a U.S.-hosted Games.

"I'd like to see it," said Staten Islander Joseph Panepinto, who was a member of the USOC for 16 years, including the time when New York lost its 2012 bid.
The USOC might also bid on the 2026 Winter Olympics.

*USOC CEO Scott Blackmun said that looking at 2024 and 2026 "allows us to form partnerships with all the people who need to be involved in a bid. That would allow us to put our best foot forward."
Chairman Larry Probst said, "This gives us further time to develop relationships with the IOC," because the bids are won as much through relationships as the pros and cons of the cities themselves.*

*Other possible candidates for 2024 are Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Chicago and Dallas.*
The United States hasn't hosted the Games since the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. The last time the Summer Games were here was Atlanta in 1996.

Panepinto said that international ill will over the Iraq War killed New York's 2012 bid.
"Our standing was so damaged," he said.

But he said that the USOC has gone a long way toward smoothing over relations around the world, including settling a dispute over the sharing of U.S. television revenue.
"There's been a tremendous amount of work by the USOC to repair our international standing," he said. "It's possible that a U.S.-hosted Games could happen. It could get enough support to be a winner."
Still, Panepinto said, hosting an Olympics is "a massive undertaking. It's all-consuming for the city involved."
*Could New York do it?*

"Sure," Panepinto said. "But is it feasible?"
One stumbling block, he said: The waterfront land for the planned 4,400-unit Olympic Village in Queens is being built on, and there is no other obvious site for that athlete housing.
Waterfront land for the village is important, Panepinto said, because a New York bid would likely again feature the use of water taxis to take athletes and spectators to competition, training and medical sites.
"Anything on the water now in New York City is so expensive," he said. "It's not like you can put it 30 miles out of town."

And without a planned West Side stadium to host opening and closing ceremonies, Panepinto said that New York might have to look to Giants Stadium, meaning that the bid would be split with New Jersey.
"I don't know how that plays out," he said. "You see the trouble they're having with the Super Bowl: Is it a New York or New Jersey game?"
But on the plus side, the city already has a lot of facilities that can be used: Madison Square Garden for boxing; Brooklyn's Barclays Center for basketball; Randall's Island for track, as well as Yankee Stadium and Citi Field.

And the indoor track facility in Ocean Breeze also would be online, meaning track events could be held there as well if it passes Olympic muster. That means that many facilities won't have to be built from scratch.
But a larger question looms, according to Panepinto: *Does New York need the Olympic Games?*

"New York is already a prestige city," he said. "What is the benefit?"
And Panepinto points out that Olympic Games simply don't make money.
"You're making a multi-billion dollar investment for 19 days of competition," he said. "It never works out financially."

*New York aside, Panepinto said, the U.S. needs to land a Games soon.
"It's been too long," he said. "The USOC needs the international credibility. It needs to have an America-based Games. They need to start asserting the leverage it has because of the TV revenue."
City Councilman James Oddo (R-Mid-Island/Brooklyn), looking to run for borough president next year, said he was "intrigued" by the idea of New York hosting the Games.
*
"I wasn't terribly excited about it last time," he said. "I didn't think we could get it. But I'm more open to the idea, having gone through that process. I see the vision."
But he agreed that it would be an "extremely difficult effort to mount."
Said Oddo, "I'm still not sold that, on balance, it's a net plus for the host city." �

http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/07/are_olympics_in_the_cards_for.html �


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

*Farewell to the Subway Olympics That Never Were*












> With the London Olympics approaching its end, City Room traveled this week to sites in the Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan and Queens that would have been utterly transformed had New York City won its bid for the 2012 Games. Neither idle nor abandoned, these waterfront areas today are home to new parks and recreational areas, light industry and heavy construction. But they are also raw-edged works in progress, where whole swathes of land stand behind chain-link fences topped in razor wire. They present a very different scene than those described by the captions in the slide show, which are quoted from the official 2004 Olympic bid package.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

yankeesfan1000 said:


> The election is a big hinderance. Companies just want a better idea of their future tax liabilities, health care, corporate tax liabilities, etc.
> 
> There was an exodus from Lower Manhattan right after 911, but that's changed. Goldman moved a lot of their traders to NJ, and the traders basically revolted and now Goldman's moving their employees into an older building in Lower Manhattan instead of a newer building in Jersey City. UBS also wants to leave Stamford because being there hurts their ability to recruit top talent. So after 911 companies were moving out of the city, but that's largely reversed.
> 
> Edit: Just saw this on TheRealDeal, NYC outpaces suburbs in office market recovery, and is relevant to my point.


Actually Goldman recently shifted back to JC , Stamford is booming and so are the other cities...like White Plains and Newark. There isn't a pull for Manhattan anymore...the article seems to miss all the growing satilite cities.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

That NYC athletics stadium was very interesting as it seemed to conform to the boundaries of a tight lot just like skyscrapers do instead of sitting on an expanse with grounds all about.


----------



## yankeesfan1000 (Aug 11, 2010)

Nexis said:


> Actually Goldman recently shifted back to JC , Stamford is booming and so are the other cities...like White Plains and Newark. There isn't a pull for Manhattan anymore...the article seems to miss all the growing satilite cities.


*satellite

So close to a city like NY, there will always be other smaller cities that do well like Greenwich, and Stamford, but Stamford really relies on UBS, they're a huge tenant there. The big reason they didn't move to Manhattan was because they had to eat the $2B in losses from their 'rogue trader', which basically eliminated that quarters profits. From the article:

"..Last year, UBS contemplated moving back to Manhattan from Stamford. It decided to stay, but how much of a challenge is it to pitch Connecticut as an office location?

UBS only agreed to stay for the next three to five years. The general belief is that the reason it had to get back into the city is that for picking true financial talent, you have to be in the city. Not everyone lives in Stamford or wants to do the reverse commute. So we feel pretty strongly that we will probably see UBS slowly migrate out of Stamford back to the city and that will put a big chunk of office space on the market..."

If there wasn't a big draw for Manhattan anymore than Conde Nest, Viacom and Morgan Stanley wouldn't have signed 1+ million sf leases to stay there in the past 6 months, and the vacancy rate wouldn't be dropping, and commercial real estate rents wouldn't be rising. 

Again, so close to a city like NY there will always be ancillary little hubs, where companies can move their HR department or tech support, while maintaing major operations in Manhattan, and they can save a lot of money by doing so. By the way, I think is a likely scenario for Credit Suisse and Time Warner. But until companies like that start moving their corporate headquarters, or investment banking division out of Manhattan to Newark or Stamford or White Plains, saying that Manhattan doesn't have pull anymore is laughable.


----------



## Dedeco (Feb 9, 2011)

I wonder where the park site could be built.


----------



## mintgum84 (Aug 18, 2011)

A bit shocked that NYC has never held the games. Maybe you lack London's charm and sophistication?


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

mintgum84 said:


> A bit shocked that NYC has never held the games. Maybe you lack London's charm and sophistication?


Not a very charming or sophisticated comment...hno:


----------



## mintgum84 (Aug 18, 2011)

3 games to your 0.

2000 years of History to NY's 400 odd years. 

Please dont pretend NY can compete with London on issues of charm.


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

mintgum84 said:


> 3 games to your 0.
> 
> 2000 years of History to NY's 400 odd years.
> 
> Please dont pretend NY can compete with London on issues of charm.


After having lived in London for a year, I'm not pretending...London is no more charming than NYC - they are both huge cities with huge amenities.  

2,000 years of history? What? If you're including indigenous settlements, then NYC's history goes back far more than 400 years. Let's play fair now.

My original response was aimed at your lack of charm and sophistication in your words - not London's. London is a great city, much like NYC.


----------



## mintgum84 (Aug 18, 2011)

Relax man. Twas a joke.


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

mintgum84 said:


> Relax man. Twas a joke.


I should hope so. No problem, I'm relaxed as hell.:nuts:


----------



## 1Filipe1 (Jul 13, 2012)

mintgum84 said:


> Relax man. Twas a joke.


not a funny one :lol:


----------



## rincon (Mar 21, 2007)

I guess the London Olympics were actually good for NYC...


*NYC Beats London In Number Of Per-Day Tourists During The London Olympics*


Despite splurging nearly $15 billion to host the 2012 Olympics, London failed to beat out New York City for the number of tourists attracted per-day over the last two weeks.

According to a study released by a pair of New York University professors, Mitchell Moss and Carson Qing, New York saw 538,000 tourists-per-day while London attracted only a measly 429,000, a final score they believe merits the Big Apple a "gold medal" of its own.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...er-arrival_n_1776319.html?utm_hp_ref=new-york


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

I know NYC has began to bid for the Olympics, so lets just cross our fingers


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

West London (the central shopping, court and entertainment districts) was a ghost town during the Olympics. Normally the city gets over 150 million leisure daytrippers a year (3x NYC), but they stayed away in droves due to calculations the transport network would be crippled by an extra million visitors a day. It didn't help that there was a massive campaign on advertising and the mayor's voice booming out every 5 minutes on transport to use alternative routes, work from home etc during the duration. The city's 6 international airports that normally pull in 130-140 million p.a saw their busiest ever periods but the transport that draws in people from the rest of the country was docile.

One week in when they realised how successful the scheme had become, with much of the centre quieter than it had EVER been, his voice was replaced with painful announcements made by transport staff ( sounding like they were being held to a gun) on what a stunning attraction the West End was. By the second week Olympic visitors began filtering back to the traditional sights, crisis averted. 
-The East End meanwhile, near the Olympic areas, was booming the whole time - the giant new Westfield (even had to close its doors to non ticket holders as 5.5 million descended on the shopping centre), the nightlife districts and the new CBDs coming up in Stratford and Docklands.

The raised profile of the city abroad though has become incalculable, plus the whole thing has also helped define and unite modern British culture/ identity, after years in the wilderness and a whole lot of griping following the fall of empire. I don't think the British mentality outside London has ever felt too easy about the modern, multicultural and commercial path it's taken, but this has definitely helped reconcile the dissonance. Having 60 million people screaming at screens of a Cockney Somali immigrant winning the 800m for Britain, or have the normally moribund NHS taking pride of place in the Opening Ceremony, has for once bucked the tabloid, Murdoch-owned diatribes. It's also reminded us of a few things we've contributed to today's world rather than just war and colonialism, from the Industrial Revolution to women's rights, literature to music, film, arts, technology etc.


----------



## yankeesfan1000 (Aug 11, 2010)

I have to agree with the first part of your post, I can't really comment on the second and third paragraphs as I didn't go, and I'm American. But I do feel like in cities like London, NY, maybe a couple more that already have such immense presences globally, and have such staggeringly high tourism numbers, that the Olympics don't actually help.

Also, do you mind defining daytripper? 150M seems like an enormous number, and I'm just wondering who and what counts as a day trip.


----------



## Cloud92 (Jul 26, 2011)

If the Olympics were to be held in New York I'd always imagine it to be constructed on Randall's Island


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

Cloud92 said:


> If the Olympics were to be held in New York I'd always imagine it to be constructed on Randall's Island


Theres no space there , nor in Queens....all the space we had is being developed on... Philly , Baltimore and Boston still have Space , of course they would never choose a smaller city like Newark , New Haven , Providence or Wilmington all have excess space.


----------



## Dr_Cosmo (Nov 8, 2010)

Actually NYC not only never had the Olympics.
The city never hosted a World Cup Final as well.

The two most important sport events on the globe
never set foot on the little East Coast harbor.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

yankeesfan1000 said:


> I have to agree with the first part of your post, I can't really comment on the second and third paragraphs as I didn't go, and I'm American. But I do feel like in cities like London, NY, maybe a couple more that already have such immense presences globally, and have such staggeringly high tourism numbers, that the Olympics don't actually help.
> 
> Also, do you mind defining daytripper? 150M seems like an enormous number, and I'm just wondering who and what counts as a day trip.


Daytrippers are anyone doing a leisurely trip into the city (they found nearly half of all Brits become daytrippers to somewhere or other every few weeks). It's not commuters or airport interchangers (otherwise the figure would be reaching over the billion mark).

http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/glaecon-cin-29.pdf


.


----------



## johnnypd (Oct 13, 2002)

London was eerily quiet during the Olympics, no doubt about it. i think tourists who weren't interested in the olympics would've went elsewhere, so the numbers of visitors was limited, and of those who did visit, they spent their time at venues rather than out-and-about.

And guess what? 

It was fucking marvellous: less congestion, more space/easier to get in at my favourite bars and restaurants, quick taxi rides, less crowds on public transport and my choice of the best seats when i left the city on the mainline train (it's usually jam-packed on departure from KX but this time i'd say it was half full, something i've never seen before). I also had to leave the city 3 hrs before i was supposed to due to circumstances and thought i'd have to shell out plenty to change my ticket, only to find that there was a special olympics deal on which meant you could travel on trains 3 hours either side of your departure...for free! And amazingly i snagged a hotel room at a massive discount because chains were desperate to fill their empty rooms. 

just about the best london visit i've ever had.

I'd just arrived in town from NYC as well which in comparison seemed bursting at the seams and made the trip not that enjoyable. 

on a side note many new yorkers really don't know how to be pedestrians - bump into people, walk at a slower pace than londoners, randomly stop and block the middle of the pavement for conversations and commit the cardinal sin of urban walking - strolling three-abreast on the sidewalk. hno: though maybe this was just tourists i'd encountered.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

do New Yorkers fume at tourists like over this side of the pond also? I like how Italian high school groups fan out across the entrances to platforms or exiting turnstiles, or just wait in tunnels blocking everyone else. Can't blame the kids so much but the teacher MUST see how this might be dangerous, surely?? Or family groups, five abreast on Oxford Street or Piccadilly, blocking the entire pavement but for a small gap -that when you try and make a dodge for - they cut off at the last second. Or heaven forbid, the unmoving muppet that stands on the left of the escalator (normally reserved for people who want to walk up or down), at the height of rush hour, and thus creates a permanent queue not just on the escalator but bottle necking below on the platforms - even after they've gotten off or been moved. Burn them with fire!


both sides of the escalator gets blocked:










Kim Jong Il's wife, spoils it for everyone hno:










One thing that really makes me grrrr is when posh women (not tourists) insist on walking their barely-able toddler, painfully down the stairs one step at a time (often cooing encouragement), while a crowd of people builds up behind and a queue forms into the tunnels. Makes me want to give one... good... KICK


----------



## johnnypd (Oct 13, 2002)

the spliff fairy said:


> do New Yorkers fume at tourists like over this side of the pond also? I like how Italian high school groups fan out across the entrances to platforms or exiting turnstiles, or just wait in tunnels blocking everyone else. Can't blame the kids so much but the teacher MUST see how this might be dangerous, surely?? Or family groups, five abreast on Oxford Street or Piccadilly, blocking the entire pavement but for a small gap -that when you try and make a dodge for - they cut off at the last second. Or heaven forbid, the unmoving muppet that stands on the left of the escalator at the height of rush hour, and thus creates a permanent queue not just on the escalator but bottle necking below on the platforms - even after they've gotten off or been moved.
> 
> 
> both sides of the escalator gets blocked:
> ...


Yes, in fact I think New Yorkers complain even more than Londonders about that judging from reading their forums. ultimately thought it is part of big city experience that you get clueless tourists and gangs of french schoolkids who can bring down tottenham court tube station with a single 'let's do a quick headcount'.

in new york it mostly seemed like early 20 something hipsters who didnt know how to comport themselves on a city street.


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

johnnypd said:


> London was eerily quiet during the Olympics, no doubt about it. i think tourists who weren't interested in the olympics would've went elsewhere, so the numbers of visitors was limited, and of those who did visit, they spent their time at venues rather than out-and-about.
> 
> And guess what?
> 
> ...


Those aren't New Yorkers , those are tourists or Regional Residents.... New Yorkers power through knocking people over...


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

johnnypd said:


> Yes, in fact I think New Yorkers complain even more than Londonders about that judging from reading their forums. ultimately thought it is part of big city experience that you get clueless tourists and gangs of french schoolkids who can bring down tottenham court tube station with a single 'let's do a quick headcount'.
> 
> in new york it mostly seemed like early 20 something hipsters who didnt know how to comport themselves on a city street.


Born New Yorkers do not complain , however Transplants whine and moan about everything...hno:


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

If I had to choose any four cities for a bid to host the next Summer Olympics in the United States, they would be:

1. Dallas
2. New York City
2. San Francisco Bay Area
4. Washington D.C. (with Baltimore as assistant host)


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

^^ I would go 


1. New York City
2A. San Fran
2B. Chicago.......



Boston (maybe)
D.C. (maybe)
Miami (maybe)


----------



## Schreiber242 (Sep 4, 2012)




----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

I think London is very easily accessible to a 'hinterland' that's made up of near 50 million people in an an area about the size of Maine, with very good trainlines several times a day even to small villages and towns (17 major rail termini). In short it's the only megacity in the country so there isn't a huge choice in terms of urban competition. Also the leisure habits of Brits is very much tuned to being daytrippers, with 50% of adults making such outings every couple of weeks. If you do the math this is a HUGE amount of daytrips. -London isn't in fact the number 1 destination in the country - the well-heeled region around it, the Southeast, packed with attractions and coastline gets a whopping 190 million visitors a year. 

On top of that there are the 6 international airports and being the world's biggest air hub (130-140 million passengers p.a). Although only a percentage who just happen to be changing planes actually have enough time to go out to the centre, enough do it to boost the numbers (the rest aren't counted of course). The ones moving on to other parts of the country invariably stop in the city too. Also there are the international trainlines via the Channel Tunnel Eurostar, a service that not only provides holiday makers but clubbers and even a few very rich commuters.


----------



## shree711 (Dec 12, 2011)

New York has not hosted the olympics and Hong Kong has not either. Neither has singapore for that matter.


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

One problem for a major city that should host the Summer Olympics would be trying to build the necessary infrastructure for the Games, or trying to even get its bid to become successful, before space gets severely limited. Olympics come every four years, you know.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

shree711 said:


> New York has not hosted the olympics and Hong Kong has not either. Neither has singapore for that matter.


There are a lot of top tier global cities that haven't hosted, but I suppose it depends on the posters definition of top tier.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

nomarandlee said:


> ^^ I would go
> 
> 
> 1. New York City
> ...


With the exception of Miami, those would be my picks as well.


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

First time I completely agree with you ^^.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

First time for everything.


----------



## Sarcasticity (May 21, 2005)

shree711 said:


> New York has not hosted the olympics and Hong Kong has not either. Neither has singapore for that matter.


NYC is not in the same tier as Hong Kong and most especially Singapore.


----------



## scolls (Mar 26, 2009)

There is a lot of bemoaning about the cost of the Olympics, but do people realize that Atlanta and Los Angeles each turned a profit on the games? Atlanta is still using the buildings they built for games. Centennial park has turned into a tourist attraction and has spawned development nearby. There's a wrong way to due an Olympics (see Montreal, Beijing) and a right way (see Atlanta, Los Angeles) None of the American cities have building left over being unused.


----------



## kauebraga (Nov 28, 2007)

Sao Paulo neither...


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

New York City is basically the capital of the world along with London, Sao is not even close to Los Angeles yet.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

-Corey- said:


> New York City is basically the capital of the world along with London, Sao is not even close to Los Angeles yet.


Well that didn't last long. Capital of the world? Hubris and conceit know few limits with some. New York isn't even the capital of New York. Non-politically, New York is the capital of your *country.*

Economically, Tokyo is #1
Fashion, Paris is #1
Politically, there is no #1
Culture, New York is arguably not even #1 in the English speaking world

That said, most major nations look to their own primary city first.


----------



## MrCitiesXl (Jul 9, 2012)

Hong Kong did staged equestrian for the 2008 olympics,just saying


----------



## MrCitiesXl (Jul 9, 2012)

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45943877/Olympic_Cities_Booms_and_Busts also refer to this


----------



## shadyunltd (May 1, 2006)

isaidso said:


> Well that didn't last long. Capital of the world? Hubris and conceit know few limits with some. New York isn't even the capital of New York. Non-politically, New York is the capital of your *country.*
> 
> Economically, Tokyo is #1
> Fashion, Paris is #1
> ...


Your rhetoric is becoming tiresome. We get it. You've got a chip on your shoulder.


----------



## zdaddy233 (Oct 31, 2007)

shadyunltd said:


> Your rhetoric is becoming tiresome.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

shadyunltd said:


> Your rhetoric is becoming tiresome. We get it.


Listen newbie. In the real world data is considered data, not rhetoric. We get it, you're insecure and don't like facts bursting your bubble.


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

Any city/metropolitan area with a population density of at least 10,000 per sq km will never host an Olympics because of the influx of visitors from other countries. The intrnational visitors are willing to use the city's infrastructure (roads and rail) to go to events.


----------



## yin_yang (May 29, 2006)

Jim856796 said:


> Any city/metropolitan area with a population density of at least 10,000 per sq km will never host an Olympics because of the influx of visitors from other countries. The intrnational visitors are willing to use the city's infrastructure (roads and rail) to go to events.


hahahaha. 

...huh?


----------

