Jump to content

U.S. Winter Bid for 2022 or 2026


Soaring

Recommended Posts

Undeclared or uninterested?

Sure, architects can do anything -- for a price. And therein lies the rub. Why spend exorbitant sums of money for a 2-week sports festival?

Which makes Lake Placid and the Tri-Lakes region a good choice.

The Tri-Lakes could use another ski resort to supplement the existing Whiteface Mountain and Big Tupper Ski areas.

Any new arenas would be either permanent or temporary, which in the case of temporary would be moved to other nearby major communities/cities. The arenas should ideally be less than the 7,700 seater Herb Brooks Arena, allowing Ice Hockey to be king, whilst keeping a sense of smaller scaled games. You're not trying to be the biggest in everything, so keep indoor venue sizes at the least smaller than IOC guidelines.

Outdoor venues will be closer to IOC capacities. You have the Ski Jumps, Biathlon/Cross-Country course, Freestyle skiing aerials and sliding center already there.

The Main Press Center could be the High School again, perhaps expanded to 5 storeys, with a new gym. International Broadcast Center would be a temporary facility, meeting the demands of the world's media.

The region could use some transport upgrades as well. Perhaps the Adirondack Regional Airport could become a full domestic airport, with a new terminal serving it and other ammenities.

No white elephants, small scaled games, sustainable games.

Gotta love that bid logo!

155120_167380909965262_3960305_n.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Earlier comments by Gromit lol

I don`t think Seattle wins with Vancouver being the elephant in the room

I don't think Seattle wins because they've never expressed interest. Ever. It's all well and good for us to discuss venue plans here, but if we're going to talk about a city's actual chances, like Athens said, perhaps we should get some hint that they actually care before we throw them into the mix.

The Main Press Center could be the High School again, perhaps expanded to 5 storeys, with a new gym. International Broadcast Center would be a temporary facility, meeting the demands of the world's media.

Lake Placid is too small to host a 21st century Olympics. I don't care if they have the nicest venues in the history of the Winter Olympics (and/or the best, most sustainable plan ever). If you think a high school can host the world's press and all the broadcast operations need for a Winter Olympics, you are sorely mistaken.

I've been to Lake Placid before. It's a nice little village in the Adirondack mountains and a more than acceptable venue for an event like the World Bobsleigh Championships. But there is ZERO chance they are ever hosting an Olympics anytime in the foreseeable future. They are simply too small to handle the scale of a moden Winter Olympics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, 3 of the Working Group's 5 members are women; 2 of the 5 members are connected w/ a Winter Sport (ice hockey); Anita is the only from an existing summer sport; I don't know what the Atlanta Braves person can contribute since baseball is presently NOT an Olympic sport; and I'm sure the VISA person couldn't care less one way or another. I say they will wait for RSA's decision for 2024; and if Durban is a sure thing; then the USOC will go for 2026.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that it would be tough for Lake Placid to go it alone. But they would be an awesome choice to co-host if the IOC relaxes their geographic requirements. There are a lot of great eastern NA cities that would be wonderful hosts, except they don't have the vertical for downhill and don't want to build a bobsleigh track.

If they ever did put at least some Olympics in Lake Placid, something I would *love*, but can't see the IOC possibly agreeing is to hold the long-track speek skating on the old outdoor track. If it was good enough for Eric Heiden, it's should be good enough for today's athletes. The fact that the IOC wouldn't go for it highlights one of the big problems with the IOC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, 3 of the Working Group's 5 members are women; 2 of the 5 members are connected w/ a Winter Sport (ice hockey); Anita is the only from an existing summer sport; I don't know what the Atlanta Braves person can contribute since baseball is presently NOT an Olympic sport; and I'm sure the VISA person couldn't care less one way or another. I say they will wait for RSA's decision for 2024; and if Durban is a sure thing; then the USOC will go for 2026.

"The USOC would like to announce that we don't know what we want to do about 2024 until South Africa tells us. Therefore, we will wait until the South African Olympic Committee holds their press conference about 2024 and we will then hold a joint press conference to try and steal their thunder."

But seriously.. the USOC can't be scared into worrying about what South Africa may or may not do for 2024. Yes, going up against Durban is not likely to end well. But who knows when they'll announce their intentions. The USOC can't sit there with their thumbs up there collective ass waiting for another country to make a decision. Besides, what's a "sure thing" anyway? Rome had submitted their bid for 2020 and then pulled out. You can forgive the USOC for not entering the 2020 race when it could have been an opportunity for them. To hold back for 2024 and miss out if that field is weaker than expected would be a mistake. If they want 2024, they should go for 2024. They're certainly not required to submit a bid if they determine by 2015 it's not such a smart idea.

And I still maintain that a 2024 bid and a 2026 bid are mutually exclusive. They can pursue both and decide later whether or not they'll actually bid. IMO, it doesn't have to be 1 or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in other words -- and yes, there is NO sure thing -- since it's looking like either NYC or LA, it's "...be prepared to kiss another $50 million goodbye...and if that doesn't work, SLC, Denver and Reno, better get ready with your $35 million each." This must be the dumbest NOC in kingdom come; second to Madrid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Seattle wins because they've never expressed interest. Ever. It's all well and good for us to discuss venue plans here, but if we're going to talk about a city's actual chances, like Athens said, perhaps we should get some hint that they actually care before we throw them into the mix.

Lake Placid is too small to host a 21st century Olympics. I don't care if they have the nicest venues in the history of the Winter Olympics (and/or the best, most sustainable plan ever). If you think a high school can host the world's press and all the broadcast operations need for a Winter Olympics, you are sorely mistaken.

I've been to Lake Placid before. It's a nice little village in the Adirondack mountains and a more than acceptable venue for an event like the World Bobsleigh Championships. But there is ZERO chance they are ever hosting an Olympics anytime in the foreseeable future. They are simply too small to handle the scale of a moden Winter Olympics

The High School will host the Main Press Center like it did for the 1980 Olympics, but a greater capacity. It will be expanded to serve the needs of growing student numbers etc.

I could see the high school getting a new gym. The existing gym turned into auditorium, and the old auditorium turned into cafeteria annex. Expand the school to 5 stories. It could work.

As for the International Broadcast Center, a temporary venue of the minimum required size will be built.

The Olympics will be held in the Tri-Lakes region as a whole, with Lake Placid being the anchor. Imagine the area being capable of hosting up to 20,000, with the surrounding region serving a further 50,000 odd. It's possible, miracles could happen. You keep venue capacity a little low, as to emphasize a small scaled games and to cap spectator numbers.

I agree that it would be tough for Lake Placid to go it alone. But they would be an awesome choice to co-host if the IOC relaxes their geographic requirements. There are a lot of great eastern NA cities that would be wonderful hosts, except they don't have the vertical for downhill and don't want to build a bobsleigh track.

If they ever did put at least some Olympics in Lake Placid, something I would *love*, but can't see the IOC possibly agreeing is to hold the long-track speek skating on the old outdoor track. If it was good enough for Eric Heiden, it's should be good enough for today's athletes. The fact that the IOC wouldn't go for it highlights one of the big problems with the IOC.

My plans would never call for the outdoor 1932/1980 speed skating oval be used for that event if an Olympics were to be held again. Build a temporary indoor venue, which would be moved elsewhere in New York, possibly Plattsburgh. Keep the old rink as a tourist attraction/public meeting place/live site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The High School will host the Main Press Center like it did for the 1980 Olympics, but a greater capacity. It will be expanded to serve the needs of growing student numbers etc.

I could see the high school getting a new gym. The existing gym turned into auditorium, and the old auditorium turned into cafeteria annex. Expand the school to 5 stories. It could work.

As for the International Broadcast Center, a temporary venue of the minimum required size will be built.

The Olympics will be held in the Tri-Lakes region as a whole, with Lake Placid being the anchor. Imagine the area being capable of hosting up to 20,000, with the surrounding region serving a further 50,000 odd. It's possible, miracles could happen. You keep venue capacity a little low, as to emphasize a small scaled games and to cap spectator numbers.

Do you understand how much the Olympics have grown in size and scale since 1980? That year there were a little over 1,000 athletes competing from 37 countries. The Winter Olympics now feature twice as many countries and by the 2020s, perhaps as many as 3 times as many athletes. The media presence has grown exponentially. I can speak to this first-hand having been in Salt Lake where the IBC/MPC was based in a brand new convention center. There is ZERO chance the IOC is going to be sold on a high school hosting the world's press. I don't care how much they expand it. Lake Placid had issues handling the size and scale of the Olympics in 1980. They're a village of less than 3,000 people (contrast that to Lillehammer which seems enormous by comparison.. they are 10 times larger Lake Placid) They don't have a prayer in the near future. And if their bid is based on doing the minimum, how do they expect to compete with every other bid that's doing more than the minimum. There is no realistic plan that Lake Placid could offer that will produce a winner. I think you're a fool if you believe otherwise

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cost of a new bobsleigh run is a non-issue

For their 2006 bid, Sion had done a lot of research and even identified a site for a prefabricated 'temporary' bobsleigh track to be removed post games with the area restored if St Moritz was considered too far.

For me, the ski jump site might be a greater problem

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cost of a new bobsleigh run is a non-issue

For their 2006 bid, Sion had done a lot of research and even identified a site for a prefabricated 'temporary' bobsleigh track to be removed post games with the area restored if St Moritz was considered too far.

For me, the ski jump site might be a greater problem

Well, Sion didn't win, did it? It's NOT just the run though but viewing areas have also to be prepared; and consideration where all those ice-making machines and the refrigerants to be used, will drain to, are the big considerations. So it's a whole big environmental issue, aside from a cost one.

I don't see the skijumps as the bigger problem because you find a fairly compatible hill (preferrably the bigger one), and then the small one to the side can be jerry-rigged. The main hill may need some re-grading but for the most part, it's there. And how expensive can the tower(s) be? It's built vertically, including a small elevator which empties out on 2 levels. Nothing as expensive as Zaha Hadid's Aquatic Center in London this past summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Sion didn't win, did it? It's NOT just the run though but viewing areas have also to be prepared; and consideration where all those ice-making machines and the refrigerants to be used, will drain to, are the big considerations. So it's a whole big environmental issue, aside from a cost one.

I don't see the skijumps as the bigger problem because you find a fairly compatible hill (preferrably the bigger one), and then the small one to the side can be jerry-rigged. The main hill may need some re-grading but for the most part, it's there. And how expensive can the tower(s) be? It's built vertically, including a small elevator which empties out on 2 levels. Nothing as expensive as Zaha Hadid's Aquatic Center in London this past summer.

Sion was the favourite and lsot for exposing the 2002 bid scandal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my take on that:

If the US bids for 2024 there can't be even a whisper that 2026 is the back-up plan or it will totally undercut the 2024 bid. The IOC would read the possibility of 2026 as evidence that the US didn't have complete confidence in the 2024 bid. Plus, I'm sure there are several members of the IOC who would prefer to have the US help diversify the rotation of Winter hosts rather than crowd the field of Summer candidates.

If the USOC decided to try for 2024 and follow it up with 2026, the 2026 plans would have to be completely hidden. You and others have argued that such secrets are impossible. Therefore, I suspect the USOC will pick either 2024 or 2026 -- not both.



The other important issue here is that the 2026 bid would have to be in the works before the vote for 2024 had taken place. I just don't see how that's possible without laming the 2024 bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my take on that:

If the US bids for 2024 there can't be even a whisper that 2026 is the back-up plan or it will totally undercut the 2024 bid. The IOC would read the possibility of 2026 as evidence that the US didn't have complete confidence in the 2024 bid. Plus, I'm sure there are several members of the IOC who would prefer to have the US help diversify the rotation of Winter hosts rather than crowd the field of Summer candidates.

If the USOC decided to try for 2024 and follow it up with 2026, the 2026 plans would have to be completely hidden. You and others have argued that such secrets are impossible. Therefore, I suspect the USOC will pick either 2024 or 2026 -- not both.

The other important issue here is that the 2026 bid would have to be in the works before the vote for 2024 had taken place. I just don't see how that's possible without laming the 2024 bid.

Completely agree with this sentiment. It doesn't make sense to have a very public "plan B" in the event of losing a bid. In fact, in my opinion it really HURTS any chances, because I assume many in the IOC would rather have the U.S. host another winter games, because there aren't as many cities competing for winter games, and it would eliminate the U.S. from hosting a summer games in the near to long term.

I think if we want to be serious about getting a summer games, we need to only bid for the summer games. No talk about a winter games should even be brought up. Now if only an alpha city (besides LA) showed interest, then we have more to work with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my take on that:

If the USOC decided to try for 2024 and follow it up with 2026, the 2026 plans would have to be completely hidden. You and others have argued that such secrets are impossible. Therefore, I suspect the USOC will pick either 2024 or 2026 -- not both.

The other important issue here is that the 2026 bid would have to be in the works before the vote for 2024 had taken place. I just don't see how that's possible without laming the 2024 bid.

The difference here, though, is that there's already interest in 2026 by 3 different parties, & there's nothing stopping the USOC by putting the breaks on them if 2024 was something that could up & the USOC was more interested in.

And besides, aren't you the one that always argued that a bid (especially a summer one) didn't have to be long in the works. Now that couldn't be the case for a 2026 bid, if in case there were a 2024 bid & it failed? Especially when SLC, Denver (& even Reno) have had their "Exploratory Committees" to look into things. They can pick up right from where they left off if they wanted to. The USOC doesn't have to promise anything to those 2026 interested parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously I'm in the minority here, but I disagree that it absolutely has to be either/or and that bidding for 2024 totally precludes a bid for 2026. The United States would hardly be the first country to have a summer bid in the works and at the same time also be looking at winter. I know you're going to tell me that the countries that have done that have won Winter and not Summer (i.e. Italy and Russia), to which of course I'll counter that the last Summer host that is even on the Winter map was Atlanta 1996.

I get the logic that says if you're bidding for Summer, it's beneficial for that to be the sole focus. I wouldn't go so far to say that the USOC needs to sweep all talk of Winter candidates under the rug and give off the impression that's not even a consideration of theirs. I know some members of the IOC may be looking for any excuse not to vote for the U.S. candidate, but (again, maybe this is just me) I don't think they're going to factor in what the USOC may be thinking about for 2026 and be thinking "well, we shouldn't strongly consider the U.S. candidate since they have a backup plan." And if the USOC were to have a compelling candidate in the field (something they didn't have for 2012 and given the geopolitics of the race, 2016 as well), then is that really the factor that's going to lose it for them? Mind you that the application deadline for the following Olympics occurs AFTER the vote for the previous one, so the USOC is under no obligation to make their 2026 plans official until after the 2024 vote occurs.

Again, the USOC may decide they are solely focused on landing a Summer Olympics and are putting Winter aspirations aside for now. Nothing at all wrong with that strategy and it definitely could work to their favor. But there's still a risk involved with that if you're the USOC to completely cut off 1 path, especially by your logic where it takes 6 years to reset (meaning that if a 2024 bid precludes a 2026 bid, then if they change their tune and want Winter, the next available Olympics isn't until 2030).



The difference here, though, is that there's already interest in 2026 by 3 different parties, & there's nothing stopping the USOC by putting the breaks on them if 2024 was something that could up & the USOC was more interested in.

And besides, aren't you the one that always argued that a bid (especially a summer one) didn't have to be long in the works. Now that couldn't be the case for a 2026 bid, if in case there were a 2024 bid & it failed? Especially when SLC, Denver (& even Reno) have had their "Exploratory Committees" to look into things. They can pick up right from where they left off if they wanted to. The USOC doesn't have to promise anything to those 2026 interested parties.

Exactly. Once the USOC has their candidate for 2024 (assuming they go that route), I don't think it's as harmful as you guys think to at least look into 2026, especially if the candidate city has the full understanding that the USOC submitting a bid is not a guarantee. That the timeline says that application does not need to be submitted until after the vote, it's something you can at least look into without signalling to the IOC that you're sitting there with an alternate plan in your back pocket

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously I'm in the minority here, but I disagree that it absolutely has to be either/or and that bidding for 2024 totally precludes a bid for 2026. The United States would hardly be the first country to have a summer bid in the works and at the same time also be looking at winter. I know you're going to tell me that the countries that have done that have won Winter and not Summer (i.e. Italy and Russia), to which of course I'll counter that the last Summer host that is even on the Winter map was Atlanta 1996.

I get the logic that says if you're bidding for Summer, it's beneficial for that to be the sole focus. I wouldn't go so far to say that the USOC needs to sweep all talk of Winter candidates under the rug and give off the impression that's not even a consideration of theirs. I know some members of the IOC may be looking for any excuse not to vote for the U.S. candidate, but (again, maybe this is just me) I don't think they're going to factor in what the USOC may be thinking about for 2026 and be thinking "well, we shouldn't strongly consider the U.S. candidate since they have a backup plan." And if the USOC were to have a compelling candidate in the field (something they didn't have for 2012 and given the geopolitics of the race, 2016 as well), then is that really the factor that's going to lose it for them? Mind you that the application deadline for the following Olympics occurs AFTER the vote for the previous one, so the USOC is under no obligation to make their 2026 plans official until after the 2024 vote occurs.

Again, the USOC may decide they are solely focused on landing a Summer Olympics and are putting Winter aspirations aside for now. Nothing at all wrong with that strategy and it definitely could work to their favor. But there's still a risk involved with that if you're the USOC to completely cut off 1 path, especially by your logic where it takes 6 years to reset (meaning that if a 2024 bid precludes a 2026 bid, then if they change their tune and want Winter, the next available Olympics isn't until 2030).

Exactly. Once the USOC has their candidate for 2024 (assuming they go that route), I don't think it's as harmful as you guys think to at least look into 2026, especially if the candidate city has the full understanding that the USOC submitting a bid is not a guarantee. That the timeline says that application does not need to be submitted until after the vote, it's something you can at least look into without signalling to the IOC that you're sitting there with an alternate plan in your back pocket

I agree with you although the USOC would need to pick a candidate, it could go ahead and hand pick the winter bid which it has hinted at doing for 2024. It would be really dumb for the USOC to not bid for 2026 if they lost 2024.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This shooting for 2024, with 2026 in the back pocket is akin to Turkey's 2020 and their Euro 2020 fall-back plan--except Turkey's was more obvious. So Turkey was asked to choose.

Exactly. Except in this case the IOC will just make the choice.

I agree with you although the USOC would need to pick a candidate, it could go ahead and hand pick the winter bid which it has hinted at doing for 2024. It would be really dumb for the USOC to not bid for 2026 if they lost 2024.

I don't know about that. It depends how they lose. If they get walloped, then 2026 makes sense. If they lose in a nail-biter they have to decide if they try again for 2028. The US will always have a much easier time getting Winter Games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...