誰將代表美國申辦2024奧運會?

Pick Me! Four American Cities Put Best Olympic Foot Forward

誰將代表美國申辦2024奧運會?

The United States Olympic Committee seems ready to bid for the 2024 Summer Games. But the hard part is deciding which of the four finalists — Boston, Washington, Los Angeles and San Francisco — has the best chance of being chosen by the International Olympic Committee. The U.S.O.C. could make its selection as soon as this week, so we asked New York Times reporters in each city to describe the view from each place.

美國奧委會看來要準(zhǔn)備競爭2024年夏季奧運會的主辦權(quán)了。但要在波士頓、華盛頓、洛杉磯和舊金山這四個最終入圍名單中挑選出那個最有機會贏得國際奧委會青睞的城市，可不是一件容易的事情。美國奧委會最快本周就會做出決定，所以我們請來時報駐這四座城市的記者，讓他們寫寫自己眼中的這場競爭。

1. Boston

波士頓

A couple of years ago, The Onion ran a satirical piece about Bostonians pretending to live in a big city. It said residents “buzz about their daily routines in a delightful hubbub of excitement as if they lived in a major American metropolis.”

一兩年前，《洋蔥新聞》(The Onion)登過一篇文章，諷刺波士頓人假裝自己是生活在一座大城市里。文章寫道，這里的居民“以一種可愛的興奮熱鬧勁兒過著他們的日常生活，仿佛真以為自己住在一個美國大都會呢”。

Some people laughed, some were defensive. But few disputed that Boston is wrapped up in an existential debate with itself about whether it is a “world-class” city.

對于這篇文章，有人哈哈大笑，有人則為這座城市辯護。但有一點倒是爭議不大，那就是波士頓全身心地投入到自己究竟是不是一座“世界級”城市的存在主義的辯論中。

Despite its many obvious assets — world-renowned universities, top-flight medical centers, a thriving biotech-driven innovation economy and championship sports teams, not to mention Tom Brady and David Ortiz — Boston still has an inferiority complex. And as it makes its first serious bid to host the Olympics, it shows.

雖然這里有著眾多為大家所認(rèn)同的優(yōu)勢——世界聞名的大學(xué)、一流的醫(yī)療機構(gòu)、以生物科技為創(chuàng)新驅(qū)動力的繁榮經(jīng)濟、冠軍運動隊，更別提湯姆·布拉迪(Tom Brady，著名的橄欖球運動員——譯注)和戴維·奧爾蒂斯(David Ortiz，著名的棒球運動員——譯注)這些如雷貫耳的名字，但波士頓始終有著一種自卑情結(jié)。隨著該城首次正兒八經(jīng)地競標(biāo)奧運會主辦權(quán)，這種情結(jié)也是一覽無遺。

Some seem to think that being picked to put on the 2024 Summer Games is entwined with mythic world-class status.

有些人似乎認(rèn)為被選為2024夏季奧運會的舉辦城市，是與所謂的世界級城市地位息息相關(guān)的一件事。

“Boston is a global leader in innovation, and in order to remain a global leader, we must be aspirational,” the pro-Olympic Boston2024 website says.

“波士頓在創(chuàng)新方面是全球的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者，為了保持領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者地位，我們必須充滿對勝利的抱負(fù)，”一個主張舉辦奧運會的網(wǎng)站Boston2024寫道。

To Boston’s mayor, Martin J. Walsh, an initial skeptic of the bid, hosting the Olympics “puts us on a scale not too many cities can claim.”

對于波士頓的市長馬丁·J·沃爾什來說(起初他對于爭辦奧運持懷疑態(tài)度)，主辦奧運“把我們放到了只有為數(shù)不多的城市所具備的級數(shù)上”。

Mike Ross, a former Boston city councilman, argued that the Olympics are a good idea “and not just for the reasons one might think, such as helping us get over our persistent ‘smaller than New York’ Napoleon complex.”

波士頓前市議會議員邁克·羅斯(Mike Ross)認(rèn)為，舉辦奧運是一件好事，“不僅僅是大家能想到的那些原因，比如幫我們克服一直以來的‘比紐約要小’的拿破侖情結(jié)。”

Whether winning an Olympics confers world-class status, Boston’s bid contains an inherent paradox: Its dream to make it big is not that big.

不管贏得奧運會的舉辦權(quán)是否會帶來世界級城市的地位，波士頓的努力包含一個自相矛盾之處：它的大城夢想其實并沒有那么大。

Boston’s modest $4.5 billion proposal envisions a new Olympic model: a walkable, bikeable, sustainable Games that uses mostly pre-existing structures. This compact city of 646,000 plans a downsized, compressed, antisprawl Olympics. No venue would be more than a 10-minute walk from a subway stop or a commuter rail line.

波士頓的承辦方案只有區(qū)區(qū)45億美元，它想像出一個全新的奧運模式：一個主要利用現(xiàn)有建筑、可以用步行或騎自行車作為交通方式、具有可持續(xù)發(fā)展性的運動會。這座有著64.6萬人口的小巧城市計劃的是一個規(guī)?？s小的、緊湊的、不搞場館散亂分布的奧運會。所有的比賽地點，都在地鐵站或者通勤火車線路10 分鐘步行路程之內(nèi)。

The International Olympic Committee has been forced to encourage this kind of thinking. Interest in hosting has declined as potential hosts watched costs spiral out of control for recent Games in Beijing ($40 billion) and Sochi, Russia ($50 billion).

國際奧委會也被迫鼓勵此種思路。一些有興趣主辦奧運會的城市看到最近的北京奧運會和俄羅斯索契冬奧會的成本節(jié)節(jié)攀升，直至失控(北京400億美元，索契500億美元)，紛紛打起了退堂鼓。

Still, one might wonder if Boston’s proposal was actually made by The Onion: The athletes could live in college dormitories that are empty during the summer; the modular housing of an Olympic village could later become new dorms; and a proposed $700 million Olympic Stadium would be temporary, so it could be razed or relocated.

然而，波士頓的方案還是讓人忍不住疑惑，這不會是《洋蔥新聞》整出來的方案吧：運動員住在暑假空出來的大學(xué)宿舍;標(biāo)準(zhǔn)間搭造的奧運村可以變成新的宿舍樓;一座計劃投資7億美元的奧運主場館將是臨時性的，會后可以拆掉或者搬到其他地方。

Does anyone think this might be carrying Yankee frugality too far? And are Olympic bigwigs serious about not wanting an extravaganza?

會不會有人因此而認(rèn)為北方佬太摳門?那些奧委會要人真的對鋪張華麗不再感冒了嗎?

Either way, the Boston promoters are trying to win over naysayers by promising tangible benefits like upgrades in roads, bridges and public transit. But many wonder why it would take the Olympics to get those much-needed improvements. The Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi wrote that the promoters were giving Bostonians an impossible choice: Buy in to their bid to get a modern transportation system, or “be labeled a small-minded, provincial party-pooper.”

不管怎樣，波士頓舉辦奧運會的推動者正在努力爭取那些唱反調(diào)的人，他們許以種種實在的好處，比如修路、修橋，更新公交系統(tǒng)。但許多人都想知道，為什么基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的改進非得通過奧運會來完成。《波士頓環(huán)球報》(The Boston Globe)的專欄作家瓊·文諾奇(Joan Vennochi)寫道，波士頓舉辦奧運會的推動者向波士頓人提供了一個棘手的選擇：想要一個現(xiàn)代的交通系統(tǒng)就要支持辦奧運，否則“就要被貼上心胸狹隘、沒見過世面的掃興鬼的標(biāo)簽”。

And there you have it: Without the Olympics, Boston cannot be world class. KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

所以你看：不舉辦奧運會的話，波士頓就不可能成為世界級的城市。KATHARINE Q. SEELYE