Jump to content

Athensfan

Members
  • Posts

    8054
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    91

Everything posted by Athensfan

  1. Come to think of it, Durban's absence from the 2011 list is kind of surprising....
  2. Based on the website of the Union of Olympic Cities it sounds as though all communication is directed to the cities and the NOC's are not involved in any readily apparent way. See the website here: http://www.olympiccities.org. As near as I can tell 2011 will mark the fourth time this summit has taken place. Thought it might be interesting to compare this year's list with past attendees. There are a lot of familiar faces, but some new ones as well. Here are the aspiring attendees from 2008: Annecy, France Busan, Republic of Korea Chicago, USA Copenhagen, Denmark Denver, USA Geneva, Switzerland Madrid, Spain Poznań, Poland PyeongChang, Republic of Korea Quebec City, Canada Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Here are the aspiring attendees from 2009: Annecy, France Busan, Republic of Korea Chicago, USA Copenhagen, Denmark Denver, USA Geneva, Switzerland Madrid, Spain Poznań, Poland PyeongChang, Republic of Korea Quebec City, Canada Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Here are the aspiring attendees from 2010: Abuja, Nigeria Annecy, France Durban, South Africa Gothenburg, Sweden Kazan, Russia PyeongChang, Republic of Korea Qinhuangdao, China Quebec, Canada Rotterdam, Netherlands San Francisco, U.S.A. Zakopane, Poland Just to review, here are the aspiring attendees for 2011: Annecy, France Dallas, U.S.A. Denver, U.S.A. Gothenburg, Sweden Istanbul, Turkey Kazan, Russia Poznan, Poland PyeongChang, Korea Québec City, Canada Reno, U.S.A. Rotterdam, Netherlands Saint Petersburg, Russia San Francisco, U.S.A. Sao Paulo, Brazil Tulsa, U.S.A.
  3. I don't doubt that Reno is serious about the Olympics. I'm not yet sure that the USOC is serious about Reno. I don't think Reno's presence at this conference indicates anything about whether or not the USOC will submit them as an applicant city for 2022. To me it's just not a a major indicator.
  4. ARRRGH! Baron, the U.S. may well bid for 2022, but they haven't said so yet. I just have a preference for SOG over WOG. Good grief! Also, I said there were probably varying levels of interest present. Maybe some cities are dead serious, but that doesn't say anything about what their NOC's think or whether they'll get out of the starting gate. You're saying this is "serious business." How can you look at Tulsa and say that with a straight face? Not to mention Sao Paulo, Kazan, Gothenburg.... If anybody's being obstinate here, it's you championing Reno 2022 and lambasting anybody who doesn't think it's a great idea.
  5. I wouldn't necessarily assume that the USOC is planning on bidding for 2022. They haven't ruled it out as a possibility and there are a couple of interested cities. That's all we know. As for Dallas and SF, even if the US bids for 2022, there's no guarantee they'll win. It seems to me that this conference is purely exploratory and doesn't entail any kind of actual commitment or declaration. So why not send a few interested parties without worrying about exactly how the future will play out? Different cities can be present with different levels of curiosity and ambition. I'm not clear on whether or not the NOC's are even particularly involved with which cities do and don't attend. Regarding Tulsa, they can pester the USOC all they want, but the USOC is in the driver's seat -- they have all the power.
  6. It suggests to me that we shouldn't attach too much significance to the list of attendees.... No Madrid, no Paris, no Tokyo, no Doha, no Dubai, no Toronto, no Chicago, no New York -- lots of potential applicant cities absent.
  7. Pure Facts point is fair. Sao Paulo is in attendance at the same conference. I can't imagine they have any serious Olympic ambitions for the near future. Tulsa sticks out like such a sore thumb.... ugh. Reno's not far behind. Personally, I'm just glad to see a strong American presence. It's a reminder to the IOC that the U.S. is serious about it's desire to host.
  8. Ditto about Sir Elton. London 2012 seems so intent on looking cutting edge that I have a hard time imagining Elton John making an appearance. I like Coldplay and could totally see them.
  9. In my opinion, FIFA's recent selections render all speculation futile. As near as I can tell, they are not using any solid criteria in making their decisions apart from which culture seems appealing at the moment. Technical considerations don't seem to matter and because the continental rotation rules are not fixed and may well change again, the apparent logic behind USA 2026 may not factor in at all. Even if FIFA does stick with the current rules instead of changing them for each cycle, I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to go someplace totally random like Cuba. Ok, maybe not Cuba.... But then again, you never know. This vote basically proved that all bets are off. FIFA will follow their own whims and special interests. I think predictions are basically pointless.
  10. At this point there aren't any. Yes, it's the world's second most populous country, yes it poses a marvelous cultural contrast to previous hosts, yes it's growing economically, BUT.... there's very little sporting tradition. the infrastructure is inadequate. poverty is widespread. corruption is widespread. India's record is questionable at best when it comes to organizing major international events. I would love to see a successful Olympic Games in India, but I don't see it happening in the next 20 years -- particularly considering the problems leading up to the Commonwealth Games.
  11. I have to say, the comparisons to Athens don't seem quite fair. Athens wasn't plagued by the same kind of corruption. They wasted three years bickering and then Gianna rode in to save the day. Legacy suffered painfully, but as one who was there, I thought the Games were a smash. It's saddening to me that so many spectators were scared away by fears of terrorism and stories of incomplete venues. Delhi's dilemma's will certainly kill any Olympic dreams for several decades (though I always questioned India's readiness anyway). I wonder, though, how these Games will affect the thinking of IOC members. Will they disregard Delhi as a tragic, but avoidable anomaly? Or will they be wary of new frontier hosts? (Durban?) I suspect that when all is said and done, Delhi will serve as a much-needed reality check for all major international sporting events. Just because you want someone to host doesn't mean they're ready. At their core are these events about sport and improving the quality of life or are they just about flash and glamour? The IOC and others will be reminded that these are real questions that must be considered. I don't think they'll start automatically dismissing the likes of Durban, but they will look very, very closely.
  12. Ugh. The stadium was not the problem. Everything else (money disputes, another American Games, revolving door leadership, lack of a story) was the problem. TOTALLY agree w/ Rols. The next American bid must NOT be in-your-face red, white and blue. It must be a celebration of the world. We are a nation of immigrants and any of the big four can tell that story (NYC, SF, Chicago, LA). The message needs to be, "It's not about US. It's about YOU." More than ever, the Games would be a celebration of global diversity. They would be Games with HEART. That's a story that would appeal to the IOC. Throw in some meaningful infrastructure improvements and favorable timing for the bid and you're good to go.
  13. 2024 may be pushing it, but 2028 definitely has potential. The biggest question is the leadership. In which city will a group of smart, charismatic organizers emerge? That is by far the most important criteria in determining whether or not a bid gets off the ground and whether it has a legitimate shot at winning. Yes, the venues are a significant issue and NYC has a big hill to climb in terms of a stadium and the village. Still, the leadership is more important. If capable people don't have a strong will to stage the Olympics, then it's game over. The leadership might surface in NYC or it might show up in Chicago or San Francisco (the most dubious IMO). L.A. has the ever persevering SCCOG which, though it doesn't constitute bid leadership, does maintain consistent Olympic momentum, which is an asset. Any of those cities could stage great Games. I strongly believe the leadership will be the biggest determining factor in deciding which one steps up to the plate. (Incidentally, it has recently occurred to me that one of the potential legacies of an L.A. Games would be mass transportation. L.A. is a city badly in need of improved mass transportation and that could be a selling point both to locals and to the IOC.) One of the things Chicago 2016 revealed about the bid process is that the bid must not only be technically superior, it must tell a story. It must have some kind of hook. That central vision is the most important thing that the bid leaders must develop. Chicago failed to do so. They put forward a plan and said "we want the Games." Not good enough. Rio said, "We are a rising economic power and our continent has NEVER hosted." Madrid said, "We have demonstrated consistent passion for the Olympic movement, passion symbolized by the dedicated service of Juan Antonio Samaranch. Honor his legacy and our national enthusiasm for the Games." Those were the only two stories that emerged from the bid. Consequently, those two duked it out in the final. Whether it is NYC or any other city, the next American bid must tell a compelling story. The leadership of that bid must figure out what that story is and communicate it powerfully.
  14. I am not coming to this thread without my personal biases. I am pro-London and anti-tower (at least anti-THIS tower). If the Tower cannot be completed in a timely manner with sufficient attention paid to the unresolved details, it should not be built at all. I realize that many details can change during construction, but it does sound as though this project is lacking in forethought. An unattractive, poorly thought-through tower that is not particularly visitor-friendly would not help London in any way.
  15. Seattle is a FANTASTIC city, but the Olympics are simply not feasible there.
  16. I hear you and I agree in terms of personal preference. I just think Houston, Philly and Miami are feasible and Seattle isn't.
  17. Seattle is a fantastic city, but I doubt they'll ever bid for the Games. The two biggest reasons: 1.) Geography makes transportation a huge challenge. Baron is right, it's a small, very congested area. And that's without an Olympics. 2.) Seattle is nothing if not eco-friendly. The city is populated with tree-huggers and I doubt that they would ever embrace the level of construction that would be required for an Olympic Games. Truly a wonderful city, but not an Olympic host.
  18. I agree that nobody can say for certain what the future holds, but the stadium is a big problem...
  19. What was the IOC thinking by including GOLF? So strange. I'm not interested at all and I can't imagine the world's golfers will take it too seriously either.
  20. The truth is that the USOC is probably unsure of what it will bid for when. We know 2020 is out. Blackmun has said that they are open to a bid in 2022, but that's not a guarantee they will submit one. If the U.S. doesn't host in 2022 (either because they didn't bid or bid and lost), there's no way to know whether they would sit out 2024 or not. I have not read anything to suggest that the USOC is more interested in Winter Games than Summer Games, so Baron's theory that the USOC's focus is on 2022 or 2026 doesn't really make sense to me. He may be right, but there's absolutely no evidence to support that statement. The only thing we know for sure is that the soonest they would consider a bid is 2022.
  21. I'm aware of those plans, but there are several problems. A.) The City of Industry is nowheresville. There is no there there. It's not a viable site for an Olympic stadium because there are no other venues near it -- in fact there's really not much near it at all. It's around an hour from downtown LA if there's no traffic. If there's traffic it can be 2 hours. It's even farther from the airport. B.) I have heard nothing about designing that stadium with an Olympics in mind. So there would probably be no track and no option of adding one. C.) The "if" you mention is pretty significant. So far nobody has bitten. Why would they? IT'S THE CITY OF INDUSTRY FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. If LA were to host again, the best site for the stadium is the Coliseum. If the Industry stadium comes to fruition, then the Coliseum would probably lose the opportunity to attract an NFL team (although LA did have both the Rams and the Raiders for quite a while -- so two teams may be very unlikely, but not impossible). Worst case scenario, money has to be found to make improvements to the Coliseum with no promise of an NFL team. This is not a totally impossible situation, though I admit it's a heck of a lot less desirable.
  22. The stadium issue is a big deal for any host. It seems like many host have struggled to make use of their stadiums -- most recently Athens and Beijing. London is having hot debates about the future of their stadium and are trying to make sure it can be both a major athletics venue and a football arena. As many have noted, the big trouble in the U.S. is that NFL teams want more compact stadiums because it creates more energy and a better atmosphere. It's also more cost effective. If you leave room for a track around the outside, you lose that. Hence, the difficulty for many U.S. cities. I really like London's plan for a stadium that can be downsized after the Games. I thought Chicago's plan was viable too. In terms of hosting IAAF championships, is there some reason why a track couldn't be installed at the Coliseum in LA. Possibly cost prohibitive, but in terms of square footage, it's obviously doable -- and it's a major city. I actually think the stadium issue is a big point in favor of LA. There's always buzz about trying to woo an NFL team back to the city. An Olympics could be a great excuse to spruce up the Coliseum and would be especially justifiable if the prospect attracted a football team. The trick would be finding a genius architect who can manage to make the venue desirable as an Olympic venue AND as a football stadium. Still, all in all, I think LA might have an easier time finding a stadium solution than New York or any other American city.
  23. HORRIFIC. HORRIFIC. HORRIFIC. I too like the signature, davey. Perhaps YOU should've consulted on the tower design...
  24. I liked Chicago's plan too. Sailing in the SF bay would be amazing. I agree that LA is not the most beautiful city (unlike Chicago or San Francisco) It has many beautiful spots, but they are islands of beauty and charm floating in a sea of urban mediocrity. Any city gets dressed up for the Games, though, and LA could be improved. The city looked fantastic in '84 and it could again, provided the city and the OCOG committed to making the necessary improvements. It would also be vital to offer clear directions that would guide Olympic visitors to some of those beautiful "islands."
×
×
  • Create New...