[HïFidelity]

Originally posted by Euan

Not you thinking Chicago is worthy of the Olympics?! There's a reason it finished last in the race for 2016.

The only U.S. worthy cities for the Olympics are NYC and Los Angeles. But London scalps them in sporting talent for sure.

Chicago is way more suitable for the Olympics than LA or NYC. I've been to or lived in all 3 cities.

New York is too small/ narrow and security is an issue
LA would actually be my second choice to Chicago.
Chicago would be great. They have the resources, the area, the security and they need the economic boost.

[HïFidelity]

NYC 67% London 29%

Poor Euan. I see why she's angry.

[Moonview]

NYC.

[johnsuxx]

The one that wouldn't exist without the other.

[Euan]

Originally posted by HïFidelity

NYC 67% London 29%

Poor Euan. I see why she's angry.

How many Americans compared to Brits on this site though?

[Euan]

Originally posted by HïFidelity

Chicago is way more suitable for the Olympics than LA or NYC. I've been to or lived in all 3 cities.

New York is too small/ narrow and security is an issue
LA would actually be my second choice to Chicago.
Chicago would be great. They have the resources, the area, the security and they need the economic boost.

Then why did NYC and Chicago both lose to better cities?

And are you forgetting that London was bombed by terrorists the day after it was announced they had won the right to host the Olympics? We in the UK are not immune from terrorism.

[liberalmusiclover]

NYC is now, I mean, it has an economy bigger than most countries. London had her time.

[HïFidelity]

Originally posted by Euan

Then why did NYC and Chicago both lose to better cities?

And are you forgetting that London was bombed by terrorists the day after it was announced they had won the right to host the Olympics? We in the UK are not immune from terrorism.

"Better cities"? you just tried it.

Anyway, I'm from NYC and the way this city is built, the idea of the Olympics being here doesn't sit well with me. This city is way too delicate for that type of situation at this point. I'm not saying other cities aren't targets for terrorist attacks, but a terrorist attack in NYC will do way more damage to people and the economy if it were to happen again.

[MAKSIM]

Im from NY and I would love the olympics to be here, but security wise it would be difficult. Logistically there would need to be some construction but most of the infrastructure is within the area. Plus a NY opening ceremonies would be gorgeous.

L.A. needs to invest in a metro if it ever wants to host the olympics.

[Damien M]

Originally posted by liberalmusiclover

NYC is now, I mean, it has an economy bigger than most countries. London had her time.

Wall Street and the London Stock Exchange aren't too far off from each other in terms of shareholding value, though.
London is on the come-up. NYC has peaked.

[Saint]

Just because London has years upon years of history does not make it more or less iconic than NYC. There are a vast majority of places in the world that have the same if not more history than London and yet none of it is widely known. NYC is obviously more iconic because it's a multitude of cultures from all over the world brought together into one city. NYC is the place of dreams and the place that everyone in the world knows about and dreams of visiting.

[EightSin]

Originally posted by BeyNavi

NYC is obviously more iconic because it's a multitude of cultures from all over the world brought together into one city.

And London isn't? It's one of, if not THE, most multi-cultural cities in the world.

[2stupid4you]

Atleast London has grass fields and trees within the city instead of concrete and glass wherever you look

[Saint]

Originally posted by EightSin

And London isn't? It's one of, if not THE, most multi-cultural cities in the world.

Says who? Immigrants from all over the world go straight to NYC not London.

[Idontcareaboutyou]

A city doesn't have to be multi-cultural to be iconic. Tokyo is iconic in its own right and not multi-cultural at all.

[2stupid4you]

Originally posted by BeyNavi

Says who? Immigrants from all over the world go straight to NYC not London.

Have you ever been to London? have you seen how many different cultures are living there?
I doubt it...

[chjw]

Originally posted by BeyNavi

Says who? Immigrants from all over the world go straight to NYC not London.

If you had been to London you would know that it is multi-cultural/racial.

[HïFidelity]

Originally posted by 2stupid4you

Atleast London has grass fields and trees within the city instead of concrete and glass wherever you look

You have no idea what you're talking about. If you want beautiful grass fields or tree, there's plenty parts of Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx and Long Island with beautiful fields and tree lined streets.

[Saint]

Originally posted by 2stupid4you

Have you ever been to London? have you seen how many different cultures are living there?
I doubt it...

Have you ever been to NYC? And I don't mean just Manhattan, I mean actually explore? But to answer your question, no I haven't yet. But I will soon!

[Saint]

Originally posted by chjw

If you had been to London you would know that it is multi-cultural/racial.

But did I say it wasn't? Because I don't think I said that at all. I was simply stating facts about NYC after some of the previous comments, if you read, stated that it didn't have much or any culture.