Jump to content

What Next, Usa?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 680
  • Created
  • Last Reply

How old are you, dufuss? Like 10yo? The funnier thing is that Minneapolis will NEVER get to host anything. NOT even a World Cup Soccer final! Obviously NO U.S. city at this time (especially some mediocre town like yours) would win the USOC over, let alone the IOC. They're not interested in the United States, let alone some frozen tundra landscape with no compelling motive to ever dream of something like the Olympics. :P Some kind of American you are. You're just a mere baffoon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How old are you, dufuss? Like 10yo? The funnier thing is that Minneapolis will NEVER get to host anything. NOT even a World Cup Soccer final! Obviously NO U.S. city at this time (especially some mediocre town like yours) would win the USOC over, let alone the IOC. They're not interested in the United States, let alone some frozen tundra landscape with no compelling motive to ever dream of something like the Olympics. :P Some kind of American you are. You're just a mere baffoon.

LOL, you arrogant blowhard. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the USOC can figure out its crap with the IOC, I think they should either bid Chicago again in 2020 or no bid at all. Here is my reasoning: I do not think any other major alpha US city (NY, LA, SF) can reproduce the technical quality of the Chicago bid. Both SF and NY are too dense for olympic compactness (not to mention the stadium issues), and LA's existing venues are too spread out for what the IOC currently likes.

The IOC also seems to be pretty tired of seeing a new American city every four years. Cities rarely win on first bid attempy, the main exception being Atlanta. IOC voters need to become familiarized with the bid city, and it is hard for this to happen in such a short time span when no visitations are allowed. Chicago has a great existing plan, they just need to sell their plan/city better. Their final presentation was a complete mess (minus the Obamas), there was no theme, passion, and they never answered "why chicago?". Fixing these problems can make the bid succesful. There may also be some sentiment now amongst members to correct the stunning rejection and unwarranted humiliation of the city and USA. This is all assuming the USOC and IOC are on good terms, if not, there is no point in any city bidding.

Assuming that the will is still there in Chicago in a couple years, they should bid again. SF and NY would be great bids, but I think they will be technically deficient and not as steady. I do not think LA can win again anytime soon.

Anything smaller than these four cities WILL NOT WIN. 2020 will likely go to Asia then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the Americans have to try a little bit harded to behave like they are part of the Olympic movement instead of trying to impose themselves. If they work on the relationship with the IOC, they will definitely host again, probably in the next 12 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree that Chicago has more potential than any other American city to host a SOG. LA -- too spread out, transportation issues, hosted twice. NYC -- the ultimate metropolis will swallow the Games, virtually no legacy. San Fran -- a bureaucratic quagmire -- forget it.

Rogge's comments throughout this race have been quite revealing -- the PEOPLE leading the bid are as important as the bid itself. Who knows whether or not Chicago can assemble the right team?

I don't think the U.S. should bid until 2024 -- unless Africa jumps into the ring that year, in which case they'll have to wait until 2028. I do not think they should bid for a WOG. It's the SOG that U.S. audiences are most interested in. Those are the ones that generate the most money. If the U.S. hosts another WOG before an SOG it will turn into "The U.S. has hosted NINE times already. Are you really going to give them TEN? It will just be another Olympics for them. They won't care..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. The U.S. should take a break. No WOG or SOG bids for 2018 or 2020. This is a time of reflection and rebuilding.

I will most likely never see my hometown host a Games. Sorry, but Daley was the driving force here, and he may not run in the next election after 20 years in office, and our hearts are broken and bitter (but we will get over it).

I don't know if the USOC would choose Chicago again, but I think the next city bid should be New York, San Francisco, Boston or Chicago (my preference over the other three).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geopolitically, though, 2020 might be the USA's ripest moment. It is certainly time for a North American Games, but Toronto may be distracted with the PanAms, Mexico has had some problems and the rest of the region is too small. Europe will be eying up 2024.

But I can understand wanting to take a break. Since WW2, the USA has bid for every summer Olympics with the exception of 5: 1988, 1992, 2000, 2004, and 2008. That is a lot of bidding!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geopolitically, though, 2020 might be the USA's ripest moment. It is certainly time for a North American Games, but Toronto may be distracted with the PanAms, Mexico has had some problems and the rest of the region is too small. Europe will be eying up 2024.

But I can understand wanting to take a break. Since WW2, the USA has bid for every summer Olympics with the exception of 5: 1988, 1992, 2000, 2004, and 2008. That is a lot of bidding!

I think the drawbacks to 2020 make it prohibitive. The IOC's troubles run too deep to be fixed in only four years.

I'm not sure it's the right time geopolitically either. Remember, there are only 5 Olympic rings -- 1 for both Americas. I know it was convenient for Rio and the IOC to look at South America as a separate continent this time, but I doubt they will in 2020. North America only has a few potential host countries. By lumping it together with South America it gives them the opportunity to turn their sights elsewhere -- something they are clearly anxious to do.

The bid process is expensive and exhausting. No city should undertake such a huge task until the USOC can prove that it will hold up it's part of the bargain -- building healthy long-term relationships with the IOC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A big potential obstacle to 2020 for the US is Cape Town. If South Africa pulls off the World Cup without any problems they will have proven they can handle big events. We would basically be going up against another Rio with even more experience. Plus instead of the "South America has never hosted" it will be "Africa is the ONLY continent to never host. We're ready and have proved we can handle big events." I don't really see any US city or bid being able to compete with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said it 1000 times. The rings are a logo. Not indicative of a policy. In the very real world, North and South America are very different and separate continents.

The rings are not indicative of policy when the IOC doesn't want them to be. They are indicative of policy when they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A big potential obstacle to 2020 for the US is Cape Town. If South Africa pulls off the World Cup without any problems they will have proven they can handle big events. We would basically be going up against another Rio with even more experience. Plus instead of the "South America has never hosted" it will be "Africa is the ONLY continent to never host. We're ready and have proved we can handle big events." I don't really see any US city or bid being able to compete with that.

Continuing...

If Cape Town does not bid for 2020 or if the 2010 World Cup has some big faults, then I think it would be very very likely that Chicago would win if they present a similar venue plan and get some enthusiasm behind the bid. But really, the chance of Chicago bidding again for 2020 is pretty slim. The recession will have to be over and Daley will have to somehow rebuild some political capital. If he can pull this off though, and land the 2020 games, his legacy would be even more impressive than if Chicago would of won 2016.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A big potential obstacle to 2020 for the US is Cape Town. If South Africa pulls off the World Cup without any problems they will have proven they can handle big events. We would basically be going up against another Rio with even more experience. Plus instead of the "South America has never hosted" it will be "Africa is the ONLY continent to never host. We're ready and have proved we can handle big events." I don't really see any US city or bid being able to compete with that.

If Africa puts forth a competent bid every other city should pull out. It would be a waste of time and money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Africa puts forth a competent bid every other city should pull out. It would be a waste of time and money.

That's what I had said in the "2020' thread in General Discussion. Let them be the SOLE bidder, that way that snotty IOC is stuck with ONLY ONe (and a good choice, too.) BUT Cape Town can call the shots!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The USOC must get their act together first. Then, and only then, should the USA bid again. 2024 seems pretty locked up for Europe now, and it is futile to try to go against the 30-40 european members. 2020 and 2028 are the best bets, but the big warning signs for the USA are a bid from Capetown and a bid from New Delhi.

New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and Los Angeles are the only mega-cities in the USA that can succesfully bid for the games from now on with increased international compeition and caliber. No more Atlantas. No Twin Cities, it won't happen. Even Boston is a long-shot, as they are a second tier american city.

Chicago is only one out of those four cities at the moment that can logistically host the games, but this loss was a big one for them. They are insulted and discouraged. They werent even really given a fighting chance, with the first round elimination. It'll take a big change of heart in Chicago for them to bid again, but I still think they would put on the best US games. I think its time the USOC quit throwing a different random city at the IOC every cycle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NYC -- the ultimate metropolis will swallow the Games, virtually no legacy.

I can buy part of the “New York is [metaphorically] bigger than the Olympics” argument, but I’ve never bought the “no legacy” one. For host cities, hosting the Olympics is what they make out of it. You can toot your own horn and assert yourself on the world stage (see Beijing), or you can take your hosting as an opportunity for massive urban regeneration (see London). No reason why any city, including New York, can’t tangibly benefit if they go with the latter.

If by 2011 or so, USOC - IOC relations still stink, any US city really has not chance in 2020. They would only end up being collateral from USOC - IOC bickering, regardless of merit or past bidding history. 2020 is looking race between East Asia / Europe (partly depending on 2018), and South Africa if the IOC feels there really isn’t much risk in going down there (which I think is something that wouldn't be known until the actual vote).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2024 seems pretty locked up for Europe now, and it is futile to try to go against the 30-40 european members. 2020 and 2028 are the best bets, but the big warning signs for the USA are a bid from Capetown and a bid from New Delhi.

I don't understand why everyone seems to think 2024 is a lock for Europe. Yes, they would have a good chance, but a lot can happen between now and then, among other things: 2018, 2020 and 2022.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we will be discussing the chances of Cape Town until 2013. I personally think that, after Rio's win, Cape Town won't win. Furthermore, we don't know about the future, but right now they don't have a Lula, an Havelange or a Samaranch that, apparently, are necessary for a win nowadays. I believe all the defeated competitors in the 2016 race should bid for 2020. Madrid and Tokyo will have much better chances then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can buy part of the “New York is [metaphorically] bigger than the Olympics” argument, but I’ve never bought the “no legacy” one. For host cities, hosting the Olympics is what they make out of it. You can toot your own horn and assert yourself on the world stage (see Beijing), or you can take your hosting as an opportunity for massive urban regeneration (see London). No reason why any city, including New York, can’t tangibly benefit if they go with the latter.

I hear what you're saying, but I'm not sure I totally agree.

As of right now, I don't see the Olympics having any impact on New York's identity at all. With or without the Olympics, it will be the Big Apple, the city that never sleeps, home to the Great White Way, Wall Street, the UN and the Yankees. I don't see the Olympics leaving any meaningful fingerprints behind. NYC is always going to be NYC. It would take some real work to develop a meaningful, concrete legacy.

Working backwards, let's think about other SOG legacies:

Rio -- legacy will be huge. 1st Games in South America. Brazil's emerging economy. Bringing the continent into the limelight. Changing the world's impression of the region forever.

London is probably the best comparison to NYC, but the U.K. hasn't hosted a Games for many, many years. The London Olympics are a re-emergence. Yes there will be significant urban revitalization in the east, but the legacy of London is also that of a formerly imperialistic superpower that has risen from the ashes of war, recreated itself and is now welcoming the world.

Beijing -- yes it's a huge metropolis, but the legacy is huge too. First Games in China. Emerging superpower. Opening the East to the West. Beijing's identity has been significantly impacted and changed by the Games.

Athens -- it was all about connecting with history and reminding the world that Greece is a magical tourist destination.

Sydney -- Games brought Sydney to the world stage -- really introduced the city to the globe. Sydney's current identity has been significantly informed by hosting one of the warmest, most successful Games in history.

Atlanta -- tough to say. They got a baseball stadium out of it. Coca-Cola was happy. Unfortunately it seems to be the prevailing popular opinion that Atlanta's Games were the worst SOG's in recent memory.

Barcelona -- almost up there w/ Beijing and Rio in terms of the strength of the legacy. Because of the Olympics the world discovered Barcelona and the city blossomed as a major tourist destination.

I just don't see how the Olympics change New York or make any significant contribution to it. I'm not saying there isn't an answer to this question, but if NYC bids again, they have to put this question at the center of their plans and come up with a very specific, concrete response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...