Rob2012 Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 Yep, I'm in two minds about Africa 2020 as well. I've always thought two new frontiers in a row to be unlikely, but on the other hand I think South Africa will blow us all out of the water with their world cup next year (vuvuzelas notwithstanding) 2012 was so obviously Europe's, 2016 so obviously the Americas', 2020 is much more in the balance. It could go to one of three or four continents depending on a number of factors. I'm not ruling out the US (although their case seems less likely to make an impact at this point), I'm certainly not ruling out Africa, I'm certinaly not ruling out Asia, and I'm not ruling out Europe either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oakydoky Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 I don't feel that 2020 will be Europe's time, especially if Munich wins the 2018 bid (which it should if there is any sanity in the IOC!!!). I don't think it is beyond the realms of possibility that 2020 goes to the United States. That would be over 20 years since they last hosted the Summer games which seems a justifiable time lapse. I don't know which city should bid - a New York bid with a resolved main stadium would obviously carry a lot of weight on the international scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 I don't feel that 2020 will be Europe's time, especially if Munich wins the 2018 bid (which it should if there is any sanity in the IOC!!!). That's why I said "depending on a number of factors". I agree with you that the way the 2018 race is looking Europe 2020 looks less likely than Asia or Africa or perhaps (though I'm not convinced) even the USA. I don't think it is beyond the realms of possibility that 2020 goes to the United States. That would be over 20 years since they last hosted the Summer games which seems a justifiable time lapse. I don't know which city should bid - a New York bid with a resolved main stadium would obviously carry a lot of weight on the international scene. I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility either, but I do think it's less likely at the moment than Africa or Asia, and arguably less likely than Europe. That's what my last post was saying; this race could lead us almost anywhere, unlike the last two which seemed to set very quickly into a pattern. I suppose we'll have to see who bids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oakydoky Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 That's why I said "depending on a number of factors". I agree with you that the way the 2018 race is looking Europe 2020 looks less likely than Asia or Africa or perhaps (though I'm not convinced) even the USA.I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility either, but I do think it's less likely at the moment than Africa or Asia, and arguably less likely than Europe. That's what my last post was saying; this race could lead us almost anywhere, unlike the last two which seemed to set very quickly into a pattern. I suppose we'll have to see who bids. I've heard Rome is considering bidding in 2020 which is obviously a top tier city with a lot of clout and influence.I'm just not convinced Europe can win to be honest. Regarding the USA, I think they should take a tilt at 2020. I think New York would be great (with an improved 2012 bid) and I would really like to see the games return to America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotguy Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 Im surprised LA is last in this poll, i know it has hosted twice but London is hosting for the thrid time, plus LA put on such an amazing games in 84 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 Agreed. Although, 2032 would be the best bet for Los Angeles. By then, it would be 48 years since '84 & maybe they can mark their centennial, since their first hosting, with it. Anything any earlier than 2032 would still be too soon for Los Angeles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cube Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 i voted SanFrancisco but would also love to see Seattle but all games outside the US are good games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Québec libre Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 Why not more votes for San Francisco ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 I somewhat agree with the above. While Greater Boston's population is comparable to past host cities, I think the biggest issue in Boston would be where could they develop the Olympic Village and where would they put an Olympic Stadium that was still in central Boston? There's some space around Harvard Stadium but I don't see them tearing that down or Harvard giving up the land. Stadium and village issues will also kill San Francisco, as shown in the recent past. I think your points are valid. I'm not questioning the size of Boston's population -- it's the lack of physical space that would be the real issue. As for those who are interested in L.A. -- L.A. has changed a lot since '84. Peter Ueberroth was the biggest reason for the success of those Games -- proving it is as much or MORE about the leadership of the bid as it is the qualifications of the bid city. The expectations of the IOC have also changed significantly over the years. L.A. would struggle to produce the compact Games, smooth public transportation and classy village that the IOC has come to expect. Don't get me wrong -- I would love to see L.A. pull it off, but it would take a gargantuan effort with stellar leadership and a great deal of civic will. Of course, there's still the issue of California's dire financial state... I agree that L.A. has no chance before the 2030s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie4040 Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 I've heard Rome is considering bidding in 2020 which is obviously a top tier city with a lot of clout and influence.I'm just not convinced Europe can win to be honest.Regarding the USA, I think they should take a tilt at 2020. I think New York would be great (with an improved 2012 bid) and I would really like to see the games return to America. Rome would not be a good choice. Too congested and won't be able to build diddly squat due to underground ruins. Expect a repeat of Athens construction woes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 It was OK in 1960...but I think Rome today can NOT handle the crowds of a 21st century SOG. It's GOT more historic ruinsh*t than Athens and its layout is sheer madness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanisMinor Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 I vote that the USOC should put forward Chicago in 2028...There's no question in my mind that Chicago is the best potential host in the U.S. Like many, I share the belief that Chicago 2016 was probably the best bid ever put forward for a US Games. However, the problem with Chicago repeatedly bidding is that the US bid process is democratic, and self-funded. As we all know, unlike other countries where mostly a central government OC picks a city, funds the bid and keeps putting it forward, the US bids are largely funded by local city donors, and an internal process chooses the best city for the international stage. For a city like Chicago, it is difficuly to justify spending $50 million+ every four years, just in the hopes of being chosen the US host before even making it to the global stage. Chicagoans are going to remember this humiliation for many years, and local opposition to a new bid will remain very, very high for at least this generation (about 20 years). We're a pragmatic country, we cut out losses and move on. I expect the next serious candidates for a US Olympics will come from a list of San Francisco (again, if they can figure out a stadium), Houston, Dallas, LA (as it's cheap), Boston and Seattle. However, I think it's going to be many, many years before the USOC is prepared to put up a city again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 Actually the $50 million was for the *whole* bid process, including the international competition, not just the U.S. domestic phase. I don't think Chicago should go for it again, anyway. Especially when the ideal land where the Olympic Village was going to be isn't going to be there at a later bid date. And I can't see Dallas or Houston ever being selected by the USOC, let alone the IOC. The USOC has said no to both of them twice already. The home state of the Bushes, who are the ones who ruined U.S. international relations with the rest of the world. Nah, can't see that flying too well internationally. Not to mention the international stature of those 2 cities are not that great anyway. They'd have a real serious cat-fight on their hands with other real global cities out there, to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanisMinor Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 Actually the $50 million was for the *whole* bid process, including the international competition, not just the U.S. domestic phase The whole bid was close to $100 million. Regardless, it remains that it is a lot of local money for a US city to spend, and the citizens of Chicago will now be very, very opposed to a future bid. I don't think Chicago should go for it again, anyway. Especially when the ideal land where the Olympic Village was going to be isn't going to be there at a later bid date. Agree that there should not be another Chicago bid. However, the village was originally intended to be in a different location, just south of McCormick place. It is likely this alternative will remain available, but is no where near as sexy as the lake front location. And I can't see Dallas or Houston ever being selected by the USOC, let alone the IOC. The USOC has said no to both of them twice already. The home state of the Bushes, who are the ones who ruined U.S. international relations with the rest of the world. Nah, can't see that flying too well internationally. Not to mention the international stature of those 2 cities are not that great anyway. They'd have a real serious cat-fight on their hands with other real global cities out there, to say the least. Well, one could have said most of that for Atlanta, too. Houston is currently the 4th largest US city, and predictions have it over-taking Chicago in size by 2020 to be third largest. Houston is also far more ethnically integrated than Chicago and probably more reflective of the ethnic make-up of the US (Chicago looks diverse on paper, but it is really a patchwork quilt not a melting pot). Both Dallas and Houston have really great infrastructure (airports, highways, roads, stadiums) and lots of available space for new construction. Houston has a bit of a climate downside. Boston is often discussed, but it will be more of a spread-out New England Games, not a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc_sf Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 Agree that there should not be another Chicago bid. However, the village was originally intended to be in a different location, just south of McCormick place. It is likely this alternative will remain available, but is no where near as sexy as the lake front location. If I'm not mistaken, the original village south of McCormick Place would have been by the lake and had the private beach as well, but the Michael Reese site was chosen because there was a deal for the city to buy the land, and it would have been relatively easier to build there. In any case, I agree with Athensfan that whenever the US is ready to bid again, and after weighing the pros and cons of the various US cities, Chicago would be the best bet as of now, as far as selling a site to the IOC. Nothing against Houston, which is an up-and-coming town that very well could have an ethnic make-up more reflective of where the US is headed. And I grant that things can change in a few years, but right now, I've still got to say Chicago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 The whole bid was close to $100 million. Regardless, it remains that it is a lot of local money for a US city to spend, and the citizens of Chicago will now be very, very opposed to a future bid.Well, one could have said most of that for Atlanta, too. Houston is currently the 4th largest US city, and predictions have it over-taking Chicago in size by 2020 to be third largest. Houston is also far more ethnically integrated than Chicago and probably more reflective of the ethnic make-up of the US (Chicago looks diverse on paper, but it is really a patchwork quilt not a melting pot). Both Dallas and Houston have really great infrastructure (airports, highways, roads, stadiums) and lots of available space for new construction. Houston has a bit of a climate downside. Where did you get the "$100 million" figure? That sounds ridiculous. I heard either Cvrtlik, Ryan or Daley say $"...$48 million"--which is more in line with what the USOC had first told the 5 domestic US finalists in 2006 to budget $30-50 million to wage a bid seriously. If the Chicagoans doubled that figure, then that is entirely their responsibility. But $100 million sounds too convenient and too rounded-of. I am sure the USOC would have had something to say about that. As you said, a July-Aug Olympics in Houston would be a laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stir.ts Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 Nothing against Houston, which is an up-and-coming town that very well could have an ethnic make-up more reflective of where the US is headed. Regardless of who should or shouldn't bid, I would hardly call Houston an "up an coming town", it's a rather large and sophisticated city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc_sf Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 Regardless of who should or shouldn't bid, I would hardly call Houston an "up an coming town", it's a rather large and sophisticated city. Didn't mean to say it isn't large and sophisticated--it is. Due to its heavy growth the past few decades, it might be considered "up-and-coming" relative to Chicago, is all I meant to say. Thank God for air conditioning, can't help but think that Houston's growth in the past few decades was helped by the advent of its affordability . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanisMinor Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 If I'm not mistaken, the original village south of McCormick Place would have been by the lake and had the private beach as well, but the Michael Reese site was chosen because there was a deal for the city to buy the land, and it would have been relatively easier to build there. You're not mistaken. Just took at look back at the domestic phase bid book. The plan was for a bridge across Lakeshore Drive from the village, which would have been above the Truck Marshalling Yard, for Lake front access. If I recall correctly, this plan was largely abandoned because it would have required developers to pony up the money up front for the deck over the railway lines and the initial 8 buildings of the village. Developers weren't that excited as it would be a long time before they saw a return. From the domestic phase book: "The site will be connected to the lakefront park through a new pedestrian overpass. The Village plan also envisions temporary uses in the lakefront park, including dining areas, athlete recreation, and shopping opportunities" ...whenever the US is ready to bid again, and after weighing the pros and cons of the various US cities, Chicago would be the best bet as of now, as far as selling a site to the IOC I too agree that it will be easier for the USOC to sell Chicago, on the basis that persistance is rewarded, that Chicago is capable of hosting a compact games and that the technical level of the Chicago bid was unmatched and likely to be so in future. The problem comes in the view that Chicagoans will be very, very opposed to allowing the city to bid again. There have been quite a few civic efforts in prior years to get Chicago to bid. Each time, Mayor Daley squashed these efforts, saying the city was not ready to bid yet. The 2016 bid happened because he believed the city was "ready", and he was right - Chicago is now ready to host a games. Unfortunately the IOC was looking elsewhere, and now Chicagoans are highly unlikely to allow the money to be spent again. The Chicago Olympic dream is over, for 2016 and probably a generation beyond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanisMinor Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 Where did you get the "$100 million" figure? That sounds ridiculous. Robert Livingstone, producer of this website As quoted on CNN Money on September 30 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dino Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 CanisMinor, I think you were referring to the Truck Yard directly south of the McCormick Place. The initial plans were to have developers "buy" the air rights for the truck yard and have the village built above. But with Medline Industries decided to close Micheal Reese Hospital after the US domestic race, it opened up an opportunity to buy this site for the city. If I'm not mistaken, the bid may be valued $100 million because of the services that were "donated" by AON Insurance (leasing of their suite 2016 in the tower, Skidmore, Owings and Merril for their architecture consulting, etc. etc. and several other companies.). But the marketing and all was around $50 million of which was 100% raised through fundraising and donations. Based on Crain's business report, they only needed about $50 mil for the international stage of bidding and ended up raising about $77 million. The surplus would be donated to the World Sport Chicago. Unfortunately, there were some people who thought that the $50 mil bid price tag was taxpayer money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Steel Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 CanisMinor, where can I see Chicago 2016's domestic bid book? I can't find it online anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 Well, one could have said most of that for Atlanta, too. Houston is currently the 4th largest US city, and predictions have it over-taking Chicago in size by 2020 to be third largest. Houston is also far more ethnically integrated than Chicago and probably more reflective of the ethnic make-up of the US (Chicago looks diverse on paper, but it is really a patchwork quilt not a melting pot). Brining Atlanta up is a simple black-&-white comparison. This issue has been brought up & discussed many times over on these forums as to how & why Atlanta got lucky. Each race has it's diifferent dynamics & reasons as to why certain cities win: With the exception of maybe Athens, Atlanta's competition for the 1996 Games wasn't that great of global caliber cities either. Atlanta also didn't particularly leave a good taste in the IOC's mouth & they're probably not very eager to visit 2nd or 3rd tier American cities anytime soon because of it. And now that we also have such big global cities like Rome, London, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo & New Frontiers like Rio & Cape Town vying desperately for the Games, the USOC is going to need a good international city to compete with the like of these global big guns, & that ain't Houston. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenadian Posted October 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 The invention of air conditioning is to the development of the big cities of the south as the invention of the elevator was to the development of New York and Chicago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenadian Posted October 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 With the exception of maybe Athens, Atlanta's competition for the 1996 Games wasn't that great of global caliber cities either. I'd say that Toronto and Melbourne were on par or ahead of Atlanta as far as international profile. Many media pundits at the time put Toronto as the leading bid with Athens in for centennial sentiment. In the 1996 vote, I think it was safe to say that Atlanta won because the majority of the IOC was thinking "Anywhere but Athens - they are not ready". The IOC likely also had Canadian fatigue, 2 years after Calgary and 14 after Montreal. But a few changes in the earlier rounds or even if the short list process had come into play and it could have changed the end result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.