Jump to content

U.S. Winter Bid for 2022 or 2026


Recommended Posts

So, I'm going to be a bad poster and not read the preceding 15 pages, but are there actual plans on paper for this bid? I'm asking because I spent a week last Christmas in Tahoe and I just can't see this thing happening. The drive from Reno is about the same as from Vancouver to Whistler, so this distance is overcomable, but I just don't see how Tahoe could pull off its end of the bid. What mountains are being considered? I'm guessing they're wanting to use the same venues at the Squaw Valley games? If so, that would make make the drive like 3.5 - 4 hours from Reno, not to mention the conditions of the ring-lake road. Maybe they're suggesting using Heavenly or one of the closer resorts? I don't know, but I'm very sceptical about the whole project. Too bad Anchorage doesn't seem interested. I was reading their bid book the other day, and they had a really cool bid. They'd get my vote any day of the week.

Seth, look at: http://renotahoewintergames.org/venues.php

I don't believe they will be using much of Squaw Valley; that is too far SW. They will be using the slopes (yes, like Heavenly) that are closer to Reno and the interstate.. and of course the MOST PHOTOGENIC backdrops. For the X-country and flatter terrain events, they are, I hope, considering sites closer to the CA-Nev border than Squaw Valley. That's why it's being called a Reno-Tahoe bid rather than a Reno-Squaw Valley bid.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It came across as arrogant (maybe that's far too strong a word actually) because it's making an assumption that the vote was about a message to America, when quite frankly it wasn't. It's viewing the

The thing that surprises me the most in this thread is that there are so many people who are unwilling to just be patient. Is it really that hard to wait and put forward a top-drawer American bid when

And do u really think they will turn down the whatever $.5 million deposit for over a year + all the interest it can add to its coffers, at the outset--just to put US supporters' mind at rest? And wh

Sorry for flying off the handle. ;) But if you've hung around here long enough, u know not to take that seriously.

Here's how I assess realistically the 3 strongest candidates for the next US WOG entry:

1. Anchorage -- so far no interest. A lot could happen by 2013 when the USOC would start finalizing its 2015 pick. Had its chances already in 1992 and 1994. How close, well-developed are the slopes and say, camera-wise, how do they rate vs. Tahoe's? Also, it would be the same general region as Vancouver. What sort of night life does Anchorage have (again vs. Reno's)?

2. Denver -- as discussed; had its turn. If I were a USOC member, I would certainly keep the return of 1976 Games in mind plus would I then be (ir)responsible in helping the good people of Denver throw $40 million down the drain for another ill-fated bid? Would I risk $40 million of other people's money just to prove wrong the fact that "Denver becomes the first city in history to slam the door in the IOC's face and that they come running back with open arms"? You got to know the temper of the IOC members to think otherwise. I couldn't in all conscience do that.

3. Reno -- granted Reno isn't Beverly Hills or Palm Beach, or God forbid, even Indianapolis; but the unparalleled graphic positives of Tahoe (which I think would account for 65% of the broadcast hours) far outweigh the negatives of the host city. I mean I don't think Reno will present itself as anything other than what it is. And an indoor ice arena is an indoor ice arena is an indoor ice arena...not unless it's designed by Calatrava in which case the cameras would focus on the beams rather than on the action on the ice. It's also in a region which by 2022, would've hosted some 62 years ago; thus it has the overlay of a previous Olympic imprimatur. If 2018 goes to Munich, then that Bavarian area would've hosted 3x already (Garmisch, 1972 and then 2018); so there is this nostalgic kick that the IOC'ers like to treat themselves to every once in awhile.

So just based on these primary considerations, I think a Reno-Tahoe bid is the most viable at the present time.

Apopology accepted :) I've been in this forum since 2003 ish in support of SF 2012 and hung around for Chicago 2016 so I know a little bit of the going ons here, I'm no newbie, however it's been years since I've posted and I don't check back as often. As far as the 3 cities you mentioned, I agree Reno has the best chance. Denver will always have a cloud hanging over it in the forseeable future, it's one thing to drop out of a race, it's another to hand it back when it was given to you. Anchorage is too far from the rest of the states, what good is having a Winter Games in the US when it is further north than Canada? I'm still hoping for a SOG comeback but is that really all our options for winter? I know snow doesn't fall everywhere but atleast some other place in the northeast besides Lake Placid or somewhere in the Midwest like Cincinnati (just an example).

I'm not going to pretend an LA winter games is even in the realm of probability, it's a crazy idea, but atleast it's out of the box and I think the world audience would be pleasantly surprised to see it since most already think "just another American Olympics" if it were held somewhere typical. Where else can you find palm trees and snow capped mountains in a single picture frame? I'm sure a lot people don't even know that Southern California produces snow. It doesn't help that Canada had 2 Winter Games the past 22 years, any North American WOG would almost feel redundant.

That points out another reason I'm not so excited about a Reno/Tahoe, Denver or Anchorage winter games. They're culturally so similar to Vancouver, Salt Lake and Calgary. I'd even say a small town with lots of charm like Branson Missouri would feel more festive, interesting and different if only it had the necessary infrastructure (there's snow up in the Ozarks I believe, but no arenas for any events involving ice). Reno would've been nice to showcase had it cleaned up nicely with an atmosphere more like Branson and less like downtown Las Vegas (the one besides the strip). That means they'd probably use the same "into the west" backstory and theme as Salt Lake and Calgary while Anchorage would mirror that of Vancouver. The Olympics are as much a cultural celebration as they are about sports nowadays.

BTW, The distance from Reno to Tahoe is about half that of LA (downtown) to Big Bear Lake, but LA to Big Bear is about the same distance as Vancouver to Whistler so one could make an argument there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

-Alaska is part of the US.and feels like it.

-LA/BBear does NOT have consistent or enough snow or vertical drop for alpine comp. It's fun when it snows to have "local" skiing...but no. X-sports, yes. Closest GREAT skiing to LA is Mammoth, 5 hour drive, also owned by intrawest (like Whistler)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Denver were to put it's hat in the ring, it should definitely be considered and given a second chance.

It's current sporting infrastructure includes:

- The Mile High Stadium (Ceremonies)

- The Pepsi Center (Ice Hockey Finals)

- Denver Coliseum (Ice Hockey Preliminaries)

- Magness Arena (Curling)

New arenas, either temporary or permanent or even a post conversion, will need to be built for:

- Short Track/Figure Skating

- Speed Skating

They can even be part of the same sports complex or something like that.

The ski slopes/areas around Denver will host the variety of alpine, ski and snowboard events.

Given the presence of Ski Jumps and the Sliding Track at Salt Lake City, Denver probably doesn't need such things as permanent structures and might make them temporary.

The Convention Center can easily host both the IBC and MPC without any need for expansion.

They're certainly the strongest of the 3 potential bidders, even if they have that 1976 Achilles heel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The world already comes to denver to ski. They hardly need the development, as you mention they have everything, so it would be just for the world to come party.....I don't think Denver needs the big owe, or would give the IOC a "second" chance or should.

Edited by stirthesoul
Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't need to propose anything, they have it all. As a regulary Denver visiter, I would prefer to keep it pure without the Olympic brand. Its starting to feel a bit like a cult, run by aristocrats who wave a hand and have convinced the masses to bow down before them.

That's probably why the USOC and IOC have such problems. It's just not our nature to report to royalty.

I'm formulating a new possition, and I think it's....

No US games.

Edited by stirthesoul
Link to post
Share on other sites

If Denver were to put it's hat in the ring, it should definitely be considered and given a second chance.

It's current sporting infrastructure includes:

- The Mile High Stadium (Ceremonies)

- The Pepsi Center (Ice Hockey Finals)

- Denver Coliseum (Ice Hockey Preliminaries)

- Magness Arena (Curling)

New arenas, either temporary or permanent or even a post conversion, will need to be built for:

- Short Track/Figure Skating

- Speed Skating

They can even be part of the same sports complex or something like that.

The ski slopes/areas around Denver will host the variety of alpine, ski and snowboard events.

Given the presence of Ski Jumps and the Sliding Track at Salt Lake City, Denver probably doesn't need such things as permanent structures and might make them temporary.

The Convention Center can easily host both the IBC and MPC without any need for expansion.

They're certainly the strongest of the 3 potential bidders, even if they have that 1976 Achilles heel.

Don't you get it at all?

Knowing how they slapped New York and Chicago, would you really risk another good bid from Denver being smacked down by an erstwhile 'punitive' organization? Don't give the IOC an excuse to get even...that's what I say because you feel like the dumbest schmuck in the world after entering, then of course, losing and having been duly warned of it. I mean how dumb could one get??

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites

New York wasn't slapped down by anyone. :lol: To get as far as they did was a miracle considering how things unravelled for them. They finished behind two of the few cities in the world which rival them as international cities, and a technically excllent Madrid bid; all with a very shaky stadium plan. I don't know what more you could have expected.

Edited by RobH
Link to post
Share on other sites

New York wasn't slapped down by anyone. :lol: To get as far as they did was a miracle considering how things unravelled for them. They finished behind two of the few cities in the world which rival them as international cities, and a technically excllent Madrdid bid; all with a very shaky stadium plan. I don't know what more you could have expected.

Sorry, Rob, I was an even stronger NYC supporter than CHicago 2016, since I consider NYC my hometown in the US. And I really liked its spread out plan. I had hoped and thought it would at least get to the final 2 wiithout getting waylaid by that pesky Iberian capital and that gnat from Catalan!

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how I could see the Mile High Stadium would be configured for ceremonies.

Denver2022.jpg

Over 65,000 general spectator capacity, with possibly more if seating is added on floor level.

Edited by Lord David
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you get it at all?

Knowing how they slapped New York and Chicago, would you really risk another good bid from Denver being smacked down by an erstwhile 'punitive' organization? Don't give the IOC an excuse to get even...that's what I say because you feel like the dumbest schmuck in the world after entering, then of course, losing and having been duly warned of it. I mean how dumb could one get??

And what about the whole consolation prize theory? Denver or whoever bids for 2022 from the US could end up winning it thanks to the consolation prize theory of the US not getting 2012 and 2016.

Link to post
Share on other sites

New York wasn't slapped down by anyone. :lol: To get as far as they did was a miracle considering how things unravelled for them. They finished behind two of the few cities in the world which rival them as international cities, and a technically excllent Madrid bid; all with a very shaky stadium plan. I don't know what more you could have expected.

Technically, our stadium plan was very shaky during the race, not at the vote. At the time of the vote, New York did have a solid plan in place, a stadium plan that in hindsight, more or less should of been the original one all along. That stadium, Citi Field at Flushing Meadows, was eventually built, but without athletics in mind as proposed to the IOC in Singapore. Though the Queens borough president seems to think it could still work.

But yeah, the sentiment here is definitely not that we lost what was ours. Few, few, people here thought we would win. Chicago on the other hand, was once a favorite. The momentum seemed to swing to them on the home stretch with President Obama's coming to Copenhagen. That loss stings much more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

/\ David, got those creative rings working O/T, huh? :lol:

Why the rings that cover the Invesco field Mile High logos could be mechanical, rising up during the ceremonies revealing themselves to the audience in a large fireworks filled spectacle, perhaps the part before the athletes arrive! :D

Naturally, for such a thing to work, existing lighting will need to reconfigured to provide an unobstructed view.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And what about the whole consolation prize theory? Denver or whoever bids for 2022 from the US could end up winning it thanks to the consolation prize theory of the US not getting 2012 and 2016.

So they'll feel sorry for the one place that had it 50 years ago and then changed its mind? I think that'll be the first time the 'consolation prize' theory will sink. If I were an IOC member with not very fuzzy US felings, why should I 'console' the US with a city that turned us down before? I'd say give me another city...not that ungrateful mountain one!! And what's to stop those unreliable Denverites from turning around and giving it back again? :blink:

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically, our stadium plan was very shaky during the race, not at the vote. At the time of the vote, New York did have a solid plan in place, a stadium plan that in hindsight, more or less should of been the original one all along. That stadium, Citi Field at Flushing Meadows, was eventually built, but without athletics in mind as proposed to the IOC in Singapore. Though the Queens borough president seems to think it could still work.

But yeah, the sentiment here is definitely not that we lost what was ours. Few, few, people here thought we would win. Chicago on the other hand, was once a favorite. The momentum seemed to swing to them on the home stretch with President Obama's coming to Copenhagen. That loss stings much more.

You talking about Citi Field? What a horrible choice! Your essentially proposing a stadium that's used for baseball for athletics in the Olympics (One could argue that Atlanta was the same, but they converted their Centennial Olympic Stadium into Turner Field, not reversed engineered a baseball stadium into an athletics one!)

Or was the proposal to build Citi Field in more of an Olympics capacity, with the Mets having to play at a 80,000 seater odd looking stadium for 3 years?

So they'll feel sorry for the one place that had it 50 years ago and then changed its mind? I think that'll be the first time the 'consolation prize' theory will sink. If I were an IOC member with not very fuzzy US felings, why should I 'console' the US with a city that turned us down before? I'd say give me another city...not that ungrateful mountain one!! And what's to stop those unreliable Denverites from turning around and giving it back again? :blink:

In this heyday of sponsorships the Denver population doesn't need concerns about taxpayer expense. Leave it to the sponsors to pay for "McDonalds Olympic Ski Jump" and 7-Eleven Sliding Center! :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

You talking about Citi Field? What a horrible choice! Your essentially proposing a stadium that's used for baseball for athletics in the Olympics (One could argue that Atlanta was the same, but they converted their Centennial Olympic Stadium into Turner Field, not reversed engineered a baseball stadium into an athletics one!)

Or was the proposal to build Citi Field in more of an Olympics capacity, with the Mets having to play at a 80,000 seater odd looking stadium for 3 years?

I never liked the plan. But it was actually or most probably going to get built once it was proposed, unlike the West Side Stadium. That's what I mean - stability; NY's finaly plans proposed were solid enough (but I'm sure the stadium debacle before that left quite a bad taste in the IOC's mind).

As its been mentioned, any future NY stadium would probably fallow the London model at Flushing Meadows. Which I completely support.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In this heyday of sponsorships the Denver population doesn't need concerns about taxpayer expense. Leave it to the sponsors to pay for "McDonalds Olympic Ski Jump" and 7-Eleven Sliding Center! :lol:

THe Denver of 1972 wasn't worried about tax expense. It was environmental issues that won the recall. (Or the environmental used 'deficit' issues as scare tactics to get their point across.) But those issues aren't going to go away if you have 350,000 people descending on your streets and slopes.

And no pre-cnavassing of a "changed" IOC sentiment will convince me that Denver has a snowball's chance in hell again. Rememeber - Chicago was counting on 26 votes the first roumd? Uh-huh...

Fooled me once, shame on you;

Fooled me twice, shame on me.

Olympic-bidding requires more cynicism than naivete.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites

Games in Denver please.

Wonderful city. If it wasn't for the dropping-out baggage that they may have (it has yet to be proven by a flat-out, harsh NO back from the IOC), they'd be the no-brainer next US Winter host. I hope they start to express interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ I agree, give them another chance, everyone deserves 2nd chances don't they (well most do)?

If they fail this time for whatever, then don't consider them anytime soon again. Simple as that.

For all we know, Reno may bid, fail and then the Denver team (or would have been team) would be criticizing the USOC for not selecting a more rounded bid potential from a larger city that could easily support it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...