WarpedReality

Unlike New York and Chicago, Boston2024 never suggested the bid would be be presented to the IOC without an unconditional taxpayer guarantee.

UGH! The USOC better not scramble together a bid with LA only to lose to Paris. They need to cut their losses and figure out what they will do for 2028 & 2032. South Africa can only host one of those two. The other will be ripe for the US to pick as long as they don't screw anything up.

I understand London 2012 has no impact on Paris 2024, but that is due to the IOC's pro-Europe bias. As I said, it was much easier for Parisians to attend London 2012 events than it was for New Yorkers to attend Atlanta 1996 events. As for Russia and China, remember that population is more important than geography. Some of those regions in Russia/China don't have the population to host the games. Namely, they do not have metropolises that at least rank on those lists of "Global Cities". For the same reason, we can be assured the "Great Plains" of the US will never host (to the chagrin of Tulsa). However, I bet you China will host another Summer Olympics later this century, but it won't be in Beijing.

The US and EU are roughly the same size. Both should host roughly the same number of Olympics. Perhaps you subtract 1 from the US to compensate for an inevitable Canadian Games. The reason the Olympics moves from city to city instead of just being played in Greece is to expose as many people as possible to the Olympic movement. When the Olympics were in London, Parisians could access them after spending a few hours on a train through the Chunnel. When the Olympics were in Atlanta or Los Angeles, Northeastern Americans needed to fly to reach either of those cities. Now don't get me wrong, I support Paris' bid now that Boston is officially gone. They have a superior technical bid and the city and Continental Europe (excluding the Mediterranean) hasn't hosted the games since Munich in 1972. And besides, they are one of the 4 top cities in the world.

In my mind, London really ought to hamper Paris' chances because it is only a few hundred kilometers away. I know the Eurocentric IOC disagrees with me, but that doesn't make them right.

The long duration since the last French games is somewhat compelling. However, the Northeast United States is only a bit smaller than France in terms of population and land area, but it has NEVER hosted a Summer Olympics. Regardless, Paris' bid has the superior technical aspects and Boston and Boston's bid is about to be taken off life-support so that it may die with dignity.

They have what it takes to beat Boston and Baku, but not much else.

I don't know what you mean by Marina Park. I know that in the early stages, there was discussion about holding beach volleyball at Revere Beach, but I don't know why it was dropped. Maybe it was considered too remote from the stadium. There are also decent beaches in Southie, and I don't know why they were rejected. Having Fort Independence in the backdrop would certainly have been pretty cool.

The Hatch Shell is a damn good place to watch an outdoor concert. Converting it into an Olympic venue is another story. All the events that can conceivably fit inside the Hatch (Fencing, Table Tennis, Weightlifting, Judo, Tae Kwon Do, etc) seem to have found a better home in a preexisting location. Look, I'm with you when you claim disappointment that the Esplanade can't host an Olympic event. However, it seems like the planets cannot be aligned properly. Rowing would beautiful on the Charles, but the Charles cannot support Olympic rowing. Beach Volleyball would be beautiful, but would necessitate closing Storrow Drive and/or demolishing the Hatch Shell. The Hatch Shell could host one of the smaller events, but it would be cheaper to use preexisting facilities nearby. Nevertheless, having events at Franklin Park and Boston Common would be absolutely gorgeous. Locating the village right alongside Dorchester Bay will provide stunning views of the harbor. A Boston Olympics would be a beautiful, but is it beautiful enough to convince the IOC to vote against Paris or Durban? We'll have to wait and see.

Storrow Drive is no mere street. It is a 4 lane limited access highway! As for the Back Bay Fens? Those are preserved wetlands! Didn't you bother to at least look up "fen" in the dictionary? Can we please drop the canard that you are somehow smarter than the bid organizers? Does Boston have beautiful public parks? Yes it does! Does Boston's bid utilize those parks? Yes it does! Just because they use parks in a manner different than the way you think is best is not a fault on the bid's part. There are events planned for the Common and Franklin Park. Other parks (Arnold Arboretum, the Fens, Jamaica Pond, etc) were designed for preservation instead of recreation (in contrast to the Common, Franklin Park and Esplanade). They thought beach volleyball on the Common will be much better than if it were at the Esplanade. I'm guessing this is due to the Storrow Drive issue, but it is entirely subjective which park is better suited for volleyball. Also, we must remember that the premise of the bid is to keep costs down by reusing existing facilities. This is why there won't be any construction of temporary venues on top of parkland if there is already a suitable preexisting alternative.

No, but the Esplanade is extremely narrow between Storrow Drive and the river. There isn't enough room to put anything without closing Storrow Drive unless the event takes place in the Charles River. And the easiest way to make support for the bid to disappear would be to propose closing Storrow Drive on any business day. The bid team made the smart decision and found other beautiful places to put events. Not to mention the fact that it would be far more expensive to build venues on the Esplanade instead of reusing preexisting structures at colleges/universities.

The Charles River cannot be used for waterfront events such as rowing which are the only ones suited well for a riverfront park like the Esplanade. I am guessing the Esplanade was ruled out as a venue location due to the difficulties posed by Storrow Drive, which would certainly need to be shut down as is done for the Pops' 4th of July concert and other large events. Closing Storrow Drive on holiday or weekend is one thing, but closing it for 3 straight weeks is quite another. Nonetheless, the bid committee has definitely showcased the beauty of Frederick Law Olmsted's Emerald Necklace by placing events in Boston Common and Franklin Park. The Olympic village is planned to be right at the shore of Dorchester Bay.

I think the Patriots' Day bombing in Boston is much more relevant to Boston's bid than any of the other tragedies of that have befallen other bid cities simply on account of the fact that it was a sporting event that was bombed. The very first Boston Marathon (held in 1897) was inspired by the revival of the Olympics the previous year. Not only that, the marathon is a marquee Olympic Event, which is oftentimes the final event with the finish incorporated within the closing ceremony. Without a doubt, if a 2024 Boston Olympic Marathon were to end at the very same finish line where tragedy occurred 9 years prior, it would be foolish not to commemorate the event.

Those odds are for the USOC decision bound to be made in the next 6 weeks, not the IOC decision in 2017. Nonetheless, I wouldn't allege that Vegas' odds are anything other than a curiosity.

No surprise, but Vegas thinks Boston and LA are the favorites for the USOC to pick: http://www.masslive.com/news/boston/index.ssf/2014/12/las_vegas_odds_olympics_boston.html

They are also doing quite well on the poll on GamesBids as well: http://gamesbids.com/eng/polls/

Regrettably, your inbox is full.

I definitely would like to see LA's bid document. I believe the official site retracted it soon after it was put out, so I am unsure where to find it now.

Fair enough, I really don't know what I am talking about.

I think it is simply a testament to the fact that I have a lot still to learn. From what I know, that document was removed from the internet soon after it was posted. I guess other sites might have mirror copies available, but I've already done a little googling to look for such sites with no avail thus far. I still think LA is probably the US's best bet if Paris isn't bidding (whether the opponent is Rome, Berlin, Durban, Madrid, Istanbul, etc). And if Boston isn't able to follow through and flesh out its technical details, then obviously, LA's bid is the strongest USOC choice. However, I think that if the folks in Boston are sufficiently committed and knowledgeable, then they ought to pull off a bid that contends with LA's technical strengths. Maybe it's just me, but I really don't see the excitement behind Taekwondo in a Classical Concert Hall or a few other new venues. In 2040, will concertgoers have the legacy of Taekwondo at the '24 games in their minds as they listen to the LA philharmonic? I guess there is merit to be granted for creatively using existing buildings that weren't designed for sporting rather than building more white elephants, but it still seems strange when the legacy won't necessarily revolve around sports. I guess it would be a different story if the '24 games were the genesis for a regular athletic competitions at the Disney Concert Hall. Perhaps that is in the bid plan that I am unfortunately ignorant of. Obviously it's rather unfair for me to deconstruct an entire bid by attacking a single point like this, but many of these elements just seem "too generic". Every city can do the same thing (reuse village for public housing, expand subway service, put Taekwondo in a concert hall). Or maybe this is where I am naive, I guess I should've done my homework and looked at the Paris 2012 bid to see what they planned to do regarding transportation and housing. Nevertheless, LA has an advantage with the geography of their plan (the compactness of the 4 clusters is definitely compelling) and perhaps that is all they need to beat Paris. But we've seen the IOC reject the most compact bid before in favor of other factors. Ultimately, all of us prognosticators are quite ignorant of the minds of IOC voters (or USOC decision makers) and only time will tell.

I admit that I did not see the leaked document, which probably explains why I'm being so stubborn. From what I've heard, the '24 bid will differentiate itself from the '84 games by putting many events in different venues than before. If that is enough to convince the IOC that an LA bid isn't stale than so be it. Tokyo won by being the "safe choice" and by being the most influencial global city. If Paris makes a strong bid, then it will be difficult for LA to steal the "safe choice" moniker. Maybe here is the flaw in my thinking: When I look at the cities that have won competiitive bids over the last few decades, I generally put them into two groups: Some cities were bold/fresh/new (Barcelona, Sydney, Beijing, Rio) and some cities that were reliable/traditional/safe (Los Angeles '84, Atlanta, Athens, London, Tokyo '20). Also, it seems that when it actually comes time for the IOC to vote that these elections are usually framed as safe pick vs. new frontier. Is this binary view flawed? Looks like I am still a comment behind... Because I missed the leaked document, could you tell me why the document leads you to believe that LA would bring so many innovative and out-of-the box ideas?

Fair enough. That definitely was a bit more verbose than it should have. Bascially, I have a feeling that LA is the best USOC candidate if the principal candidate is Durban. LA's strengths are its reliability which makes it the "safe pick". On the flip side, if Paris is the opponent, then Paris will become the "safe pick" and the only way to run around that is to be bold and branch off in new direction (something that Boston may be able to pull off...we'll see if they get their act together in time). Or am I shooting the breeze here? Can you imagine a scenario where LA seizes the "safe pick" narrative and Paris somehow claims to be the daring experiment? Sorry for the double post.

I'm not denying that there are other paths to winning the IOC vote than simply being the most influencial global city. Both Sydney and Barcelona are testament to that, namely because each brought new and fresh perspectives to the Olympic movement. Does LA have what it takes to do the same?

I think everyone agrees that in order to earn votes from the IOC many different things must come together: 1. The city must present a technically feasible plan 2. The city must be geopolitically favored (is the city "fresh") 3. The city must have a strong sporting tradition/culture 4. The city must have a compelling narrative or story that wraps the above three together Also, it probably said that we are looking at marginal cases. That is cases where American city LA might beat Paris, but Boston would lose (or vice-versa). I think in such scenarios it can be assumed that Paris has a decent plan from a technical standpoint as well as a decent narrative to wrap together the relevant geopolitics/culture/sporting tradition issues. In this scenario, in order for an American city to beat Paris it has two options: 1. It can best Paris on the merits where it is strong (AKA "beating Paris at its own game") or 2. It can persuade the IOC to focus on aspects of Paris' narritave on the merits where it is weak. I assume that if Paris bids they are going to rely heavily on their "big four global city" membership card. I don't think LA can outplay Paris here. Paris is a tier above LA in this matter. As I said before, only New York can go toe-to-toe with Paris here. LA needs something else to persuade the IOC voter to support LA over Paris. That 'something else' could be a technically superior bid, but I really doubt LA could craft a compelling narrative surrounding its culture/traditions. This is especially true in light of the fact that it hosted within a half-century (within the lifetimes of many IOC members). Now replace LA with Boston. While Boston probably won't be able to match Paris on the 'global influence' metric either, they do have cards to play that LA lacks, namely: 1. First Olympic Games north of the Mason-Dixon Line and also first games in the BosWash corridor which is probably the most populous (and wealthiest) region of the developed world to have never hosted a summer olympics. 2. Strong sporting tradition that goes beyond the four largest American Professional sports leagues (Head of the Charles & Boston Marathon). 3. Massachusetts is the birthplace of at least two olympic events (Basketball and Volleyball) 4. The dense nature of Boston will likely lead to a more intimate games (this card could backfire if the). Maybe these cards aren't as strong as LA's single card (also there is no guarantee Paris won't present a technically superior bid). However my inexperienced gut tells me that the USOC would be better off with Boston's 4 cards instead of LA's 1 card if Paris ends up being the USOC's principal opponent.

I was trying to differentiate between Paris which is a member of the "big 4" (London, Paris, Tokyo and New York). LA is a very influential city, but it falls shy of those four. Maybe you are right and this difference has no bearing here, but I feel that only New York could ever beat Paris at its own game. If a different American city is to beat Paris, I feel a different trajectory probably ought to be taken. But the truth is that I'm an ignorant newbie around here, so I'm trying to learn by throwing my ideas around and seeing what the reaction is. It's the only way I'm ever going to learn.