![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Today the International Olympic Committee released its Evaluation Report. This is the last official source of information for IOC members, who will select the 2012 Summer Games city in July. There are 5 candidate cities: London, Madrid, Moscow, New York City, and Paris. [each link goes to that city's organizing committee's website]
The evaluation reports are perhaps half of what makes or breaks an Olympics bid. There's no recommendation about which bid is best, but there are subtle (or not, in rare cases) ways that differentiations are noted between the bids. The IOC has already culled several other bid cities quite some time ago; invariably for logistical reasons--though I think Rio's exclusion from the 2012 short list was political (Lula is too radical). In other words, if the IOC is willing to invest the time and resources to visit your city and its plans, you've already allayed most of the major concerns that make hosting an Olympics dicey. These include money, money, infrastructure, political stability, experience hostin large international events, and money. Did I mention money? In years past sentimentalism had crept into the bid process, leading to a great deal of stress and more than a little controversy. Can anyone say Athens? This year's report, like the one for 2010's Winter Games (award to Vancouver-woot!), more often gives a few clues about how any bid stacks up against its competitors. Like that report, about half the candidate cities are described in a way that make their bids much less likely to garner enough IOC member votes. But to keep things even, each bid gets at least a few pointed questions--nobody's perfect, eh?
Paris: This is their 3rd try since 1992, and they've been the frontrunner throughout. They already have half the sport venues built or under construction (the "we'd build it anyway" spiel really gives IOC members a woody), and they've hosted the World Cup and World Athletics championships. The city's infrastructure for transport is almost ready to host the Games now, and public support is well over 80% both in Paris and across France. All levels of government and the major trade unions are signed on in support. The plus factor for Paris is integrating iconic Parisian tourist sites into the sports themselves: beach volleyball under the Eiffel Tower, the triathlon starts with a swim in the Seine, marathon and cycling road races around many other tourist venues. These Games would really be in Paris, rather than in the Paris metro region. Quote: "Paris 2012 has proposed integrated Games to minimise planning and operational differences and provide a first-rate sports event, along with a community celebration." Doesn't get much better than that.
London: Wow what a way to get back into the race. "The budgeting process is very detailed and meticulous, and assumptions are well supported and documented. The budget appears to be reasonable and achievable." London has become a genuine contender, though I think Paris is still slightly ahead--primarily because of having many venues already in place. London's plans are excellent but will require much more construction. "Whilst the Olympic Park would undoubtedly leave a strong sporting and environmental legacy for London, the magnitude of the project, including the planned upgrade and expansion of transport infrastructure, would require careful planning to ensure all facilities and rehabilitation projects were completed on time." Tha'ts it really: going with London would be dicier due to the ambitious construction plans. Otherwise, the bid's great, though public support (around 70% is lower than Paris).
New York City: Da Nu Yawkaz have done a good job playing catch up, but unless something interesting shakes down in the regional voting, they're not a strong contender. Three things stand in their way: financials for construction, transportation, and environmental concerns. Some of the new venues would be financed via "Compulsory purchase procedures may be required to obtain the proposed site for the Olympic Village. These procedures could delay land acquisition, which may impact on construction schedules." In other words government (municipal and state) would be legislating the purchase of lands and signficantly underwriting plans for a stadium in Manhattan--a proposal that is very controversial. Regarding NY's innovative "X" grid for transport, " a number of venues are not fully served by the core network of dedicated Olympic lanes, which may make it difficult to achieve the stated travel times." Or, more succintly, we don't believe your numbers. As for environmental concerns, it's NYC in July/August: "New York’s air quality levels for the proposed period of the Games are generally within World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines but levels of the pollutant ozone, while diminishing, remain a problem, particularly in summer." It's not 3 strikes you're out, but certainly it's you're not at the top of the list. And the fact that the US is the only bid nation that has rejected the Kyoto Protocol hasn't helped.
Madrid:This bid enjoys the greatest level of public support (85% or higher regionally and nationally), and the plans are also excellent. "The OCOG budgeting process is very detailed and rigorous and assumptions are well supported and documented" although it is also "low in technology and transport." I think they're just digging to find a way to avoid have 3 serious contenders, all from Europe. Surprisingly, Madrid may have shot themselves in the foot because "some revision to the design and layout of the (Athletes') village would be required to ensure conformity with IOC requirements." How on earth did they manage to not meet IOC specs for the Village? You just can't do that anymore when bidding for the Games--ask Salzburg 2010.
Moscow: "Whilst Moscow has good sports experience and a high number of existing competition venues, the bid committee has not presented detailed design and operational plans or a detailed construction schedule." And perhaps the most commonly used phrase throughout is "although planning lacked detail"--in other words, forget it. This really should have been Rio's place. Grrr....
Here's how I read the rankings from this report, in order of best to worst: Paris, London, New York City, Madrid, Moscow. NY is only ahead of Madrid because of there being too many European cities on the list; any other year Madrid would be ahead of NY. I predict that Moscow will drop off on the first ballot. Then either Madrid goes or (surprise) NYC. If NYC goes, then it's possible some pissed off NY supporters will vote for Madrid to spite the other two. But I think it will be Paris on the 3rd or 4th ballot.
As it should be. Theirs is the best bid.
The evaluation reports are perhaps half of what makes or breaks an Olympics bid. There's no recommendation about which bid is best, but there are subtle (or not, in rare cases) ways that differentiations are noted between the bids. The IOC has already culled several other bid cities quite some time ago; invariably for logistical reasons--though I think Rio's exclusion from the 2012 short list was political (Lula is too radical). In other words, if the IOC is willing to invest the time and resources to visit your city and its plans, you've already allayed most of the major concerns that make hosting an Olympics dicey. These include money, money, infrastructure, political stability, experience hostin large international events, and money. Did I mention money? In years past sentimentalism had crept into the bid process, leading to a great deal of stress and more than a little controversy. Can anyone say Athens? This year's report, like the one for 2010's Winter Games (award to Vancouver-woot!), more often gives a few clues about how any bid stacks up against its competitors. Like that report, about half the candidate cities are described in a way that make their bids much less likely to garner enough IOC member votes. But to keep things even, each bid gets at least a few pointed questions--nobody's perfect, eh?
Paris: This is their 3rd try since 1992, and they've been the frontrunner throughout. They already have half the sport venues built or under construction (the "we'd build it anyway" spiel really gives IOC members a woody), and they've hosted the World Cup and World Athletics championships. The city's infrastructure for transport is almost ready to host the Games now, and public support is well over 80% both in Paris and across France. All levels of government and the major trade unions are signed on in support. The plus factor for Paris is integrating iconic Parisian tourist sites into the sports themselves: beach volleyball under the Eiffel Tower, the triathlon starts with a swim in the Seine, marathon and cycling road races around many other tourist venues. These Games would really be in Paris, rather than in the Paris metro region. Quote: "Paris 2012 has proposed integrated Games to minimise planning and operational differences and provide a first-rate sports event, along with a community celebration." Doesn't get much better than that.
London: Wow what a way to get back into the race. "The budgeting process is very detailed and meticulous, and assumptions are well supported and documented. The budget appears to be reasonable and achievable." London has become a genuine contender, though I think Paris is still slightly ahead--primarily because of having many venues already in place. London's plans are excellent but will require much more construction. "Whilst the Olympic Park would undoubtedly leave a strong sporting and environmental legacy for London, the magnitude of the project, including the planned upgrade and expansion of transport infrastructure, would require careful planning to ensure all facilities and rehabilitation projects were completed on time." Tha'ts it really: going with London would be dicier due to the ambitious construction plans. Otherwise, the bid's great, though public support (around 70% is lower than Paris).
New York City: Da Nu Yawkaz have done a good job playing catch up, but unless something interesting shakes down in the regional voting, they're not a strong contender. Three things stand in their way: financials for construction, transportation, and environmental concerns. Some of the new venues would be financed via "Compulsory purchase procedures may be required to obtain the proposed site for the Olympic Village. These procedures could delay land acquisition, which may impact on construction schedules." In other words government (municipal and state) would be legislating the purchase of lands and signficantly underwriting plans for a stadium in Manhattan--a proposal that is very controversial. Regarding NY's innovative "X" grid for transport, " a number of venues are not fully served by the core network of dedicated Olympic lanes, which may make it difficult to achieve the stated travel times." Or, more succintly, we don't believe your numbers. As for environmental concerns, it's NYC in July/August: "New York’s air quality levels for the proposed period of the Games are generally within World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines but levels of the pollutant ozone, while diminishing, remain a problem, particularly in summer." It's not 3 strikes you're out, but certainly it's you're not at the top of the list. And the fact that the US is the only bid nation that has rejected the Kyoto Protocol hasn't helped.
Madrid:This bid enjoys the greatest level of public support (85% or higher regionally and nationally), and the plans are also excellent. "The OCOG budgeting process is very detailed and rigorous and assumptions are well supported and documented" although it is also "low in technology and transport." I think they're just digging to find a way to avoid have 3 serious contenders, all from Europe. Surprisingly, Madrid may have shot themselves in the foot because "some revision to the design and layout of the (Athletes') village would be required to ensure conformity with IOC requirements." How on earth did they manage to not meet IOC specs for the Village? You just can't do that anymore when bidding for the Games--ask Salzburg 2010.
Moscow: "Whilst Moscow has good sports experience and a high number of existing competition venues, the bid committee has not presented detailed design and operational plans or a detailed construction schedule." And perhaps the most commonly used phrase throughout is "although planning lacked detail"--in other words, forget it. This really should have been Rio's place. Grrr....
Here's how I read the rankings from this report, in order of best to worst: Paris, London, New York City, Madrid, Moscow. NY is only ahead of Madrid because of there being too many European cities on the list; any other year Madrid would be ahead of NY. I predict that Moscow will drop off on the first ballot. Then either Madrid goes or (surprise) NYC. If NYC goes, then it's possible some pissed off NY supporters will vote for Madrid to spite the other two. But I think it will be Paris on the 3rd or 4th ballot.
As it should be. Theirs is the best bid.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}