Jump to content

Karenina

Members
  • Posts

    53
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Karenina

  1. I think he's trying to ask why Lausanne isn't bidding for the 2022 WOG, lol. Cinquanta is an obnoxious tool though, so it's just best to ignore him if possible.
  2. Oh, one other, very positive reason, why I'd like Almaty to win is to see the NBC heads explode. Just imagine the poor schmucks who draw the short straw and have to spend a year or so in Kazakhstan of all places doing all the terrible fluff pieces and prepping for the Winter Olympics. It makes my little, black heart sing, lol.
  3. I just can't get on board with Beijing being the first city to host both the Summer & Winter Olympics. Kazakhstan might be the most improbable country to ever host an Olympic Games if Almaty wins but I'd rather they get it than Beijing. It's a shame that Munich wasn't interested this go-round. They'd be a much more obvious and deserving choice for the honor of being the first city to host both the Summer & Winter versions of the Olympics and it would have been especially poignant coming 50 years apart.
  4. Honestly, I think that's part of what makes DC unique amongst American cities. It's probably my favorite city in the US after San Francisco. I love all of the museums along the Mall and I find the various monuments & memorials to be very moving. It's a beautiful city, any time of the year. I'm not even sure the humidity is as big of a deal as some have mentioned. If Atlanta can host the Summer Olympics during July/August then certainly DC wouldn't be any worse. Having said that, much as I love DC, I'd skip a Summer Olympics they hosted because I don't do humidity. Four years of college in Virginia was more than enough for this born and bred West Coaster.
  5. Exactly as you would any other structure. California's building code is a lot more stringent than any other state in the country when it comes to earthquake safety. I'm sure that any stadium to be built would be constructed to the highest possible standards of safety and with the best known engineering practices. I'm pretty sure that if the 49ers can build a new stadium in Santa Clara (a whole lot closer to the epicenter of the '89 Loma Prieta quake than Candlestick Point) and no one worries about the earthquake safety that a soccer stadium in LA can also be built with the same skill. Look, the bottom line, as anyone who has ever lived anywhere in California can tell you, is that both LA and the Bay Area are littered with faults, running through major population centers. Seismologists are constantly discovering that those faults don't operate the way they've been previously theorized. And, while the science is learning all sorts of new things about earthquakes and faults, no one has yet to figure out how to predict them. Yes, there are some amazing technologies that allow some small bit of advance warning (as we were able to witness in Japan three years ago) but the fact is, no one knows when another one, a big one, THE big one, will strike, and the best you can do is just live with it, prepare to the best of your ability and construct the strongest, most flexible buildings possible. Having lived in both California (I remember Loma Prieta quite vividly) and in Virginia (college for four years - lovely brick buildings, American gothic style and quite likely to sustain damage in an earthquake), I can assure you, I'd feel a lot safer attending an Olympics in California than I would almost anywhere else in the country if the biggest risk and concern anyone had was a potential earthquake, of any magnitude.
  6. Sure, in retrospect, it's easy to say that the USOC should have gone after a 20222 WOG, given the way the decent options for the IOC are dropping like flies. But, I'm not sure I think there was really enough time for the USOC to properly vet a 2022 candidate and come up with a winning, or even suitable, bid once they worked out the revenue-sharing agreement with the IOC. From that perspective, I can't say that declining to submit a 2022 WOG bid was the wrong decision. It's fair to say, based on what little we've seen of the USOC's hand here, that submitting a bid for 2024 is not a guarantee simply because the cities they would prefer to bid have said they aren't interested and the other internationally appealing US cities do not have the ability/venues to submit a workable bid. If NYC, Chicago or San Francisco were viable candidates we wouldn't be getting these "oh, it's no guarantee we're going to bid for 2024" comments out of the USOC. And, unlike the UK, I don't think the USOC is all that interested in LA hosting a 3rd SOG before some of these other cities are given a proper chance. I would like someone with more knowledge (and by this I mean factual information not subjective opinion) to explain to me why Boston, Philadelphia, Washington DC or Dallas are not considered to be first tier cities but yet Miami is considered on par with NYC, Chicago, SF and LA. I can understand why San Diego isn't considered in the same class as those other 9 cities and won't disagree with those who dismiss it as a viable candidate city.
  7. Who do you think the USOC should go with? Denver? Because there are issues there that are just as great, possibly moreso, than whatever SLC or Reno present.
  8. That's about how I feel regarding Denver. They were given the right to host WOG and they turned their backs on it. I would rather the US push viable cities/areas that have never hosted the WOG before putting forth Denver as an option to the IOC. That's not to say Denver wouldn't be a good choice just that they had their chance and blew it. Oh, come on. The USOC, with the notable exceptions of Lake Placid and Los Angeles, has never been one to put forth a city/area as a candidate city that's already hosted. The Olympic movement was in a far different place in the late '70s/early '80s than it is now and under better circumstances, I doubt either would have hosted a second time. The dynamics of the national selection process weren't going to favor Reno/Tahoe in the 1980s when Anchorage was put forth as the USOC's candidate city for both 1992 & 1994. Obviously, with Anchorage not clinching either of those and the USOC still very much wanting to host another WOG, they shifted gears and went with a different city for 2002. SLC made much more sense as a potential host city than Reno/Tahoe at the time. Honestly, with the exception of Denver, if you were bagging on any other city as badly as you're bagging on Reno as a potential host city, I'd be defending that city just as vigorously. I've already stated that I think the stigma of 1976 will always be there for Denver. And probably, in the eyes of the IOC, is a far worse sin than being a tacky city that has casinos lining its downtown core. None of the USOC's options are slam dunks. I think they really missed the boat in choosing not to submit a candidate for 2022, but that ship has sailed and the choice is now which city, if any, should be put forth as a candidate for 2026.
  9. Athensfan - are all of these photoshopped then? They're all taken from a similar vantage point and yes, the eastern flank of the Sierras do rise above the city like that, especially when you're overlooking the city from an eastern ridge. I honestly do not get why you are so hostile to Reno. Certainly the drier side of the Sierras is not everyone's cup of tea. But, seriously, there are a lot of other places in the US that can and should be classified as an armpit ahead of Reno. Try spending a few days in Fresno or Bakersfield and then we'll discuss just how awful of a city Reno is by comparison.
  10. Good points, Nacre, which I hadn't considered. When I go to Reno it's usually driving so I don't know what it's like to arrive at the airport. I have flown into Las Vegas though and I'd guess that it's similar to McCarran, and I'll gladly concede that the slot machines in the terminal are tacky. As I mentioned, I go there to visit family so going downtown isn't always on the agenda though I've been on Virginia Street several times over the years and I admit a certain fondness for a brief exposure to all the flashing, glittering neon lights and signs. It is, in a word, fun. I will ask, though, if we were discussing Amsterdam as a bid city for another Summer Olympics would the issue of legalized prostitution or marijuana be enough to completely ruin a potential bid?
  11. Sac would be more likely than the Bay Area but I don't think either are all that likely. Mileage-wise they're close but drive time, especially in the winter, not so much. It takes about 2 hours to drive from Sac to Reno and I-80 over the Donner Pass is notorious for being shut down in inclement weather. The Bay Area is even further away. Even though they're only about 90 miles apart, it usually takes at least 2 hours to drive from Sac to SF due to the traffic. It's a nice thought but not very feasible. Might as well change it to a Sacramento/Tahoe bid if you want to move the ice events to northern California.
  12. Athensfan apparently has never been to Reno. It's a nice, little city with a lot more going on than just the tacky casinos (though a lot of them have been re-furbed in the past decade from what I understand - it's been at least that long since I've visited though my parents were there last summer). It's no less scenic, with the Sierras looming to the west of the city, than Salt Lake City or Denver. And there's nothing in the Wasatch or the Front Range that can compete with the natural beauty of Tahoe. It doesn't matter what time of the year you visit Tahoe, it's always breathtakingly beautiful. There's a lot of history in the region too with the old mining towns from the Comstock Lode to the south and east of Reno, and of course the Mother Lode on the western side of the Sierras. We all know NBC would surely task Mary Carillo or Bob Costas with a mini-documentary fluff piece recounting the story of the ill-fated Donner Party. I happen to really like Reno and I think the IOC could easily be charmed by it if the USOC submitted them for a bid. I don't see how it is any worse of a choice than the highly inaccessible Lake Placid, the slightly less inaccessible Bozeman or the non-starter that is Boston (how far away would the alpine skiing have to be again?). I can understand why Denver and SLC will get a serious look from the USOC. There is something fascinating with the notion of Anchorage hosting the Winter Olympics (furthest north ever?) and on the surface, I can at least see why Anchorage would get consideration given that it's a fairly large city with a major international airport. But, I firmly believe that Reno/Tahoe is probably the strongest candidate the USOC could put forth if they did bid for 2026.
  13. I'm in favor of Reno/Tahoe. I have relatives in Reno. I don't think Denver has a shot. They'll always have the stigma of '76 hanging over them.
  14. binary, I'm also from the Portland metro area and I concur with your opinion. Much as I'd love to see an Olympics in my backyard there's no way that folks in this city would support an Olympic bid, at least not a Winter Olympics bid. A Summer Olympics bid might be slightly more likely but even that would likely get killed once people realized the cost and environmental impact. With as big of a fight as the folks over in Lents put up to the idea of building a baseball park to keep the Portland Beavers Triple-A team in town, there's no way I can see the citizens of the region willing to build a speedskating oval or a sliding center. I'll have to find some time to look over that website though, just for grins and giggles.
  15. I agree. I don't think the IOC really cares much what his politics are, only that he came in, cleaned up the SLC scandal and delivered a really good Olympic Games just five months after the worst terrorist attacks the world has experienced. I'd think any bid that has him working with them probably goes up in the estimation of the IOC and only helps when it comes time for the final selection.
  16. I had the same impression when I read the article. Unless there is a direct quote from someone at the USOC or from the cities listed, it's nothing more than a broadly educated guess of which cities might be in discussions with the USOC based upon the public knowledge of which cities have expressed an interest or mounted serious bids in the past 12-15 years.
  17. Which is going to be a problem at just about any stadium in the US, regardless of whether it's an NFL stadium or a college stadium. And, with college football as big a business these days as it is, I can't see many universities wanting track lanes around a brand-new, state-of-the-art, swankly football stadium. I can't see a temporary stadium being a popular option anywhere in the US but it worked for London so maybe it would work somewhere else.
  18. Traffic might disappear but it is mighty hard to transport those folks using BART (which is a decent enough system, especially when combined with the other commuter train options that traverse the Bay Area as a whole - CalTrain and ACE) if the BART workers go on strike. Do you know how many times they have either gone on strike or come so close to striking in the past two years? At least twice that I can recall off the top of my head. And I know that for a fact, thanks to the many friends I have who live in the Bay Area and rely upon BART for their daily commutes. Maybe it wouldn't be an issue but there's no guarantee that it won't. As far as the stadium issue... Unless the IOC demands that the Olympic Stadium be located in San Francisco proper, I'm not sure why it would be a problem to use the stadiums at either Stanford or Cal, or even the new 49ers home, Levi's Stadium. Another option, would be to tear down that cesspit known as the Oakland Coliseum and build something newer/better for the Raiders. Of course, nothing's going to happen on the Oakland front until MLB works out its territory rights issues between the Giants and A's and lets the A's move down to San Jose since the East Bay stadium options for the A's are all dead in the water. But I expect that there will be definitive movement on the A's front, which will impact the Raiders (they'll be jealous and begging for a new stadium of their own after Levi's Stadium opens anyways), far sooner than any decision on a possible SF Olympic bid. With respect to the Olympic Village issue - there's all that land that's going to be sitting empty once Candlestick is torn down. I can't think of a better place to rejuvenate than Candlestick Point. I haven't researched the land requirements necessary for an Olympic Village though so I'm not sure if there is enough acreage out there. It's been a good 15 years since I've had a need to visit Candlestick but I like the idea in theory.
  19. Well, that assumes that a bid from Toronto gets off the ground. And, I think the likelihood of that happening is about as strong as NYC making another bid in next decade. But, you are correct to point out the unlikelihood of the US being awarded the 2032 Summer Games sometime in mid-late 2025 right before hosting a 2026 Winter Games. I suppose it all really depends on which cities start lining up to try for both 2024 and 2028, and which cities are on the winter docket as well. Scary that it's looking like it could very well wind up being a 36 or 40-year gap between North American Summer Games, but that's what might very well happen if the USOC passes on bidding for 2024 or 2028.
  20. I can't see the Bay Area getting behind hosting an Olympics. On the surface, sure there will be support but then, once the environmentalists get ahold of the impact, they'll scream and holler and dissuade the Bay Area from proceeding. Beyond that, transportation is a mess in the Bay Area, and that's on a good day. Three weeks of the Olympics? No way. Not to mention, BART workers have a nasty habit of going on strike fairly often. Mind you, if the Bay Area wound up becoming a host city, I'd find that to be an acceptable reason to visit family and friends in the area, lol. Er, rather, utilize their guest rooms and/or sofa beds while attending some events. But, really, I cannot begin to express just how chaotic and awful the traffic in the Bay Area is (lived in the Central Valley and worked in the East Bay for 20 years). That and that alone makes me think that hosting an Olympics is probably not feasible.
  21. I was just throwing out the leading US cities, especially ones that have bid domestically or internationally in the past 10-12 years (which, I suspect, is what some of the articles that have been in the mainstream press, have done). I've never thought NYC would bid again, at least not for a very long time.
  22. Well, I did miss the facetious comment but I certainly read through an entire thread that only has 37 posts in it.
  23. Whoops! Well, still... Out of the five Winter Games since Women's Ice Hockey was added, 1 out of 10 silver & gold medals to a country not named Canada or USA is not that great of a success rate.
  24. I don't think Synchro will be added anytime soon. On the figure skating forums I follow the discussion has been that perhaps the IOC is looking to remove women's ice hockey because of the lack of competitiveness (USA & CAN are the only two countries to win gold or silver since it's inclusion). But, the general consensus, even amongst diehard figure skating fans is that Women's Ice Hockey won't get the boot, and certainly not for Synchro. There are a lot of reasons why it won't be included, not the least of which is the number of athletes, but it also doesn't look really spectacular on TV. I doubt NBC has much interest in doing away with Women's Ice Hockey in favor of Synchro. The Team Event got a lot of positive press and while there are some tweaks necessary in the scoring to keep it from being over after the Short Programs, as well as to not burn out the skaters who compete in the first week of the games, I think it will stick around. I do not, for one second, think NBC would be okay with the individual figure skating events starting on the Thursday or Friday of the first week. Beyond that, I suspect that moving all of the Short Track events to the first week would negatively impact them and perhaps reduce the number of events in which many skaters in that discipline could compete. I'm just a singular voice but I really don't think that competing in the team event was that detrimental to the pairs or mens individual events. The one change I would absolutely make would be the substitution rule - instead of allowing substitutions in only two disciplines, allow the teams to substitute as many disciplines as they have qualified multiple entrants. That would help reduce the fatigue factor, not that I think it was really that much of an issue.
×
×
  • Create New...