A Tale of Two (or Five) Cities

First, Moscow was eliminated. Then New York, followed by Madrid. In the end, London beat Paris to become the host city of the 2012 Summer Olympics.

I had hoped that Madrid would win the bid; London, Moscow and Paris had hosted the Games before, and New York, being an already crowded and truly global city, doesn’t need the Olympiad to revitalize itself. But London and Paris had been considered as the top contenders, with the latter tipped for the longest time as the favorite to win.

From the clips BBC and CNN had broadcasted, it seemed that both cities pulled out all the stops and presented great bidding campaigns. I must admit, London’s charmed me. But I was intrigued by what one analyst theorized as to why the IOC chose London. According to him, the IOC wanted the Olympics to leave a legacy to the prospective host city—and its people—long after the Games have ended. In London’s case, a revitalized East End, where most of the events will take place.

Poor Paris. It turned out this was its third unsuccessful bid in recent years to become the host city. I doubt it if they’ll join the race for the 2016 Olympiad; third time was obviously not the charm. My dad and I, while watching the live telecast, had thought of possible cities that have terrific potential to host the Games after London. We both agreed on Las Vegas. Why? It seems to have solid infrastructure, good climate, and more than enough capital to spend. And I heard that Nevada as a whole is booming.

London may have won, but I think New York has the best 2012 Oympics logo. And I may have favored Madrid, but I can’t believe their logo is that boring.

Here’s wishing London all the best of luck for the next seven years. For its sake, may it be spared from the pre-Olympiad problems that had plagued Athens.