NYC 2024 or 2028

[FYI]

Even if they don't, I'd still prefer SF, NYC, LA or some other SOG to a Reno 2022. There's nothing wrong with that opinion.

Again, if it's not going to be NYC, CHI, SF or LA for whatever reasons (lack of political will, too much red tape, not enough money or too much money to 'waste' on a bid, etc), then WHO else is the "some other" SOG's candidate that you would like to see rather than a Reno 2022??

Because a lot of people on this forum claim that only the premier cities of countries can host. i.e. South Africa (which I would agree with, but to a certain extent).

After the top U.S. 4, there's really nobody else. If you don't like Reno for a Winter Games, then how could you like anybody else (besides the big 4) for the much grandeur Summer Olympics.

[Athensfan]

Totally fair question, FYI.

I guess I have faith that at least one of those big four (NY, LA, SF, Chicago) will step up to the plate once they realize the time has come and the IOC is willing to come back to the U.S.

As for other potential candidates, I'm a little suspicious of all of them. I suppose the most viable would be one of Texas' various options, Philadelphia, Boston, Miami. I've never really bought the idea of Minneapolis and although I love Seattle, the geography poses major logistical challenges and the ultra-green mindset isn't going to jump at the major projects a Seattle Games would require. I don't really see Honolulu as a possibility.

I do believe that one of those big four will come through by 2028 at the latest and my personal preference would be to wait. If others feel that is too much of a gamble or too long to wait, I see their point of view, I just don't share it. I suspect that no matter what, the next American SOG will take place in one of the big four -- the question is when. The 2020's or the 2040's? I think the USOC has a surprising amount of control over that timeframe. A successful winter bid will mean the SOG will wait until the 40's. The absence of a winter hosting will mean the SOG will most likely happen in the 20's.

If these timeframes are effectively communicated to the powers that be in the various cities, I am confident that the USOC will succeed in eliciting at least one top-drawer bid from the big four.

[baron-pierreIV]

/\ I really don't see Chicago bidding again for another 50 years...not unless it (or the 3 other US possibilities) is ready to throw another $100 million for the next round.

Even LA with a $100 million warchest is a hard sell for a 3rd round. Remember, it only came back in 1984 because there were no other bidders. That's NOT going to be the case for many years to come. If LA were up against a Paris, Berlin or maybe even an Osaka, and I were on the IOC, I would NOT vote for LA. I would go with any of the other 3 because other than Beverly Hills or Palos Verdes, there is nothing attractive about the LA landscape.

(There might be a glimmer of hope on the SF front. Am hoping the Santa Clara voters will defeat the 49ers initiative there on June 8...thereby sending that idiot York and his team to share a supposedly 'new' stadium in Oakland with the Raiders. Then a "San Francisco"-centered bid might again be viable; altho a Hunters Point Village location might still be problematic for such a bid. Even a UC-Berkeley campus-converted-OV would be very problematic with an Oakland-stadium location...but we shall see. It seems the pros & anti's for the Santa Clara location are neck and neck. But even so, would San Francisco have $100 million and the backbone to launch another bid? Not with all the other social-civic causes being cut due to budget problems. )

So realistically, it's probably only going to be a New York City bid. Otherwise, please wipe this 'Summer Games-only' wool from your eyes, Mr. A.

Edited March 31, 2010 by baron-pierreIV

[Athensfan]

/\ I really don't see Chicago bidding again for another 50 years...not unless it (or the 3 other US possibilities) is ready to throw another $100 million for the next round.

Even LA with a $100 million warchest is a hard sell for a 3rd round. Remember, it only came back in 1984 because there were no other bidders. That's NOT going to be the case for many years to come. If LA were up against a Paris, Berlin or maybe even an Osaka, and I were on the IOC, I would NOT vote for LA. I would go with any of the other 3 because other than Beverly Hills or Palos Verdes, there is nothing attractive about the LA landscape.

(There might be a glimmer of hope on the SF front. Am hoping the Santa Clara voters will defeat the 49ers initiative there on June 8...thereby sending that idiot York and his team to share a supposedly 'new' stadium in Oakland with the Raiders. Then a "San Francisco"-centered bid might again be viable; altho a Hunters Point Village location might still be problematic for such a bid. Even a UC-Berkeley campus-converted-OV would be very problematic with an Oakland-stadium location...but we shall see. It seems the pros & anti's for the Santa Clara location are neck and neck. But even so, would San Francisco have $100 million and the backbone to launch another bid? Not with all the other social-civic causes being cut due to budget problems. )

So realistically, it's probably only going to be a New York City bid. Otherwise, please wipe this 'Summer Games-only' wool from your eyes, Mr. A.

Of course, all this is assuming you're correct.... In your opinion Chicago won't bid for 50 years, but you can't know that for certain. In your opinion LA won't come up with the cash and SF won't come up with something workable, but again you can't possibly know this.Once these cities realize that the U.S. isn't going to have to worry about the "it's too soon for another American Games" complaint, they'll be much more willing to foot the bill. A winter hosting will just revive that "it's too soon" mindset in the IOC and the U.S. will more than likely lose more money on ill-timed summer bids.

The 2024 vote is in 2017. The 2028 vote is in 2021. That's seven and eleven years away respectively. You're claiming remarkable prophetic abilities. You're also betraying some pessimism. I cannot imagine that the economy will not have noticeably rebounded by then. Assuming the bid is timed well, I don't see money being the problem. It's just a matter of being very intentional about waiting long enough and timing it to work with continental rotation. If the U.S. does that, they will win.

[baron-pierreIV]

Of course, all this is assuming you're correct.... In your opinion Chicago won't bid for 50 years, but you can't know that for certain. In your opinion LA won't come up with the cash and SF won't come up with something workable, but again you can't possibly know this.Once these cities realize that the U.S. isn't going to have to worry about the "it's too soon for another American Games" complaint, they'll be much more willing to foot the bill. A winter hosting will just revive that "it's too soon" mindset in the IOC and the U.S. will more than likely lose more money on ill-timed summer bids.

The 2024 vote is in 2017. The 2028 vote is in 2021. That's seven and eleven years away respectively. You're claiming remarkable prophetic abilities. You're also betraying some pessimism. I cannot imagine that the economy will not have noticeably rebounded by then. Assuming the bid is timed well, I don't see money being the problem. It's just a matter of being very intentional about waiting long enough and timing it to work with continental rotation. If the U.S. does that, they will win.

When was the last time Chicago seriously bid or was considered? 1904...and it must've cost them $200 or so.. OK, I'm guessing. But after the debacle of October, do you really hear any great numbers in Chicago (or the USOC) clamoring...Can't wait for the next go-around!!

My view of L.A. is from its competitive ability vs. other 'alpha' cities that are chomping at the bit. It had none of that in 1978/84. Even against an Istanbul today, L.A. would barely get by...let alone vs. a Toronto or a St. Petersburg. Look at its last domestic attempt, they MOVED even more venues farther down to Long Beach; its last presentation was the antithesis of compactness.

2017 is only 7 years away. I don't think a favorable landscape for a summer US bid would be propitious anytime soon. I've been around long enough and followed this whole bidding scene for over 30 years now...so I think I have a good grasp of what's feasible and what isn't. The money MIGHT NOT be there; the USOC has stated they are sitting 2020 out...I would imagine that would also include 2024....and I'd be willing to make a bet with you...with interest -- not unless a bunch of masochists stage a coup and rule the USOC.

Edited March 31, 2010 by baron-pierreIV

[FYI]

Agreed, no one can know "for certain" whether or not Chicago won't bid for another 50 years. However, if we were to put money on it, I would say Chicago is done for a very long time to come.

Like Baron mentioned, b4 the 2016 bid, when was the last time Chicago SERIOUSLY bid for the Olympics? When the city tried for the 1952 & 1956 Games. And b4 that? When the 1904 Games were given & then taken away from them. So, from 1904 to the 1950's to 2009? That's an average of 50 years.

Unfortunately, I don't think the people & the city of Chicago would fall for, or stomach another debacle Olympic bid process. Protesters will be quick to throw the dismal 2016 loss & the $80 million that were just 'flushed down the toilet' at city leader's faces. So, it's at least safe to say that Chicago won't be around to bid for at the very least this decade. Chicago is NOT going to take the Detroit road (which Detroit never got them anyway, after 8 attempts).

With S.F. in such red tape, I think our only hope now maybe NYC (if they can come up with a plan like London's), or maybe even L.A., but they would have to come up with a very COMPELLING plan for the IOC to even "consider" going there for a 3rd time.

[Soaring]

I agree that Chicago will be sitting out for a while. The environment here is not conducive for another bid anytime in the foreseeable future (50 years might be a bit of a stretch, but who really knows).

Mayor Daley will most certainly not throw in another bid. I don't know if some of you know this, but he was actually hurt politically by the bid. Most of it was his own doing. Things would have been much better for him if the economic environment wasn't so difficult in 2009.

NYC has less of a history of putting forth bids, but to me they seem like they could be the strongest candidate (given timing and conditions). I think too, after London hosts, some of the power players in NYC might want to think about bidding again. Who knows though. I can see Boston, LA and even SF being in the same position years down the road.

[baron-pierreIV]

I think it'll be the next generation of civic leaders...the ones who haven't been burned...who will lead the next round of serious American summer bids...not the present ones. Even youngish Gavin Newsom of San Francisco doesn't care to cater to the IOC's whims anymore. Same thing with the USOC. I think the current leadership might steer another Winter bid. But it'll be the leadership say in 2018-19 going into the 2020s who will be brave enough to lead another US summer bid.

In the meantime, the USOC is preoccupied with how to deal with the IOC and keep its ground, and most U.S. bid consultants/experts are also preoccupied with the World Cup bid.

Edited March 31, 2010 by baron-pierreIV

[Athensfan]

FYI, your points are totally reasonable.

I do think that if the U.S. waits until they can honestly say to prospective bidders that the time is RIPE for another American SOG, that will attract interest -- even possibly from Chicago.

The Chicago loss is still fresh right now. And although your points about Chicago's bidding history are well taken, they are not automatically an indication of the future. If Chicago can feel extremely confident about the race -- not only the bid itself, but the timing and the USOC's relationship with the IOC -- I think another bid is possible. I also think the IOC would be extremely inclined to try to reward a Chicago bid assuming it is timed well. I admit there are a lot of if's there, but I don't think it's totally out of the realm of possibility.

I still think that some option among those big four will work out. Even if it came down to NYC and LA (who says they will bid every time the U.S. decides to try) -- that's not a shabby pair of candidates. I still think it makes more sense to wait than put all the eggs in Reno's basket. If the USOC can come up with a more compelling host, perhaps the argument for 2022 would carry more weight with me. Not with Reno, though.

[baron-pierreIV]

Can't wait for the Reno bid!!

Edited March 31, 2010 by baron-pierreIV

[Athensfan]

Can't wait for a Reno bid!!

ughhh....

[Soaring]

Maybe I should set my sights on a powerful position in City Hall, and make preps for a bid in the 30's if no other city gets a SOG in the 20's....

[baron-pierreIV]

Maybe I should set my sights on a powerful position in City Hall, and make preps for a bid in the 30's if no other city gets a SOG in the 20's....

I wish you the best...and I'd move some of those venues out of the lakefront. Was never sold on that idea and neither was the IOC. Spread them out over the neighborhoods.

Edited March 31, 2010 by baron-pierreIV

[Soaring]

I won't forget the argument about the skyline being distracting for the archers in Grant Park.

[baron-pierreIV]

I won't forget the argument about the skyline being distracting for the archers in Grant Park.

Yeah, archery should be in a very austere setting. Athens had it right in the bowl of the old Panathiniakos stadium; and that bowl protected the arrows from any undue wind interference. Also, you don't see the biathlon target range being placed against a distracting background.

[Brekkie Boy]

Even LA with a $100 million warchest is a hard sell for a 3rd round. Remember, it only came back in 1984 because there were no other bidders. That's NOT going to be the case for many years to come. If LA were up against a Paris, Berlin or maybe even an Osaka, and I were on the IOC, I would NOT vote for LA. I would go with any of the other 3 because other than Beverly Hills or Palos Verdes, there is nothing attractive about the LA landscape.

Firstly of course it all comes down to personal opinion, and I'm sure there are still people within the IOC who would get blinded by the idea of a Hollywood Olympics, whether it's the right choice or not.

And secondly, it all comes down to who wins what. Yes, hypothetically Berlin and Paris may be your preferred choice for the games, but if one of them wins 2020 or 2024, that would change your views were LA bidding for the next games.

Back to New York and what really works in their favour IMO is there lack of history bidding. Some cities just look desperate when they're always putting their hat into the ring - but New York hasn't got a history of doing that, so when they do bid, you know they're pretty serious about it.

[baron-pierreIV]

Back to New York and what really works in their favour IMO is there lack of history bidding. Some cities just look desperate when they're always putting their hat into the ring - but New York hasn't got a history of doing that, so when they do bid, you know they're pretty serious about it.

Yes and no. 3x in a row worked for LA culminating in 1932 and 1984. Madrid is in that trying-too-hard category. Hasn't worked for Paris in the last 30 years. We'll see if it works for Pyeong Chang (which I think it will. A 3rd denial to Pyong Chang would really paint the IOC as an anti-Korean/maybe even 'racist'? body to the world.)

Edited April 1, 2010 by baron-pierreIV

[Athensfan]

I don't think LA belongs in the "trying too hard category." They express interest every time the U.S. solicits candidates internally, but the IOC hasn't seen an LA bid since 1984. I sort of think that even 2028 might be too soon for another LA Games -- probably 2032 at the earliest, but we'll see. I definitely would not count the city out.

I agree w/ Brekkie Boy's assessment of New York's infrequent bidding as an asset. I would even go farther and say that spacing out the bids is an asset not only for any city, but any country. Take Germany, for example. Apart from Leipzig, they've laid pretty low and now Munich is generating a lot of buzz.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: the "IT'S OUR TIME" card is potentially the most powerful card a a bid can play. (Of course technical insufficiency -- not inferiority -- would render it moot, but that's another story.) The U.S. has had to bid without that card for several times running now and it definitely translates into a sisyphustian battle.

[FYI]

Chicago is also not a frequent bidder. They've bid a total of like 3 times in the last 70 years. This is another reason why I'm pretty skeptical of them coming back so soon.

And I don't think too many in the IOC would be blinded over a Hollywood Olympics. The IOC likes to be the center of attention when throwing their 3-week shindig, not the other way around. Although, that didn't seem to be the case with Brazil & their 2014 W.C.

[baron-pierreIV]

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: the "IT'S OUR TIME" card is potentially the most powerful card a a bid can play. (Of course technical insufficiency -- not inferiority -- would render it moot, but that's another story.) The U.S. has had to bid without that card for several times running now and it definitely translates into a sisyphustian battle.

I think everybody in the IOC understood that last October...especially with the large "CHICAGO WILL BRING THE BIGGEST TV $$$ EVER" not-so-subliminal message.

And even with the new US president there, the IOC farts still said: Go Fly a Kite!!

[Athensfan]

You could argue that Chicago was still just too soon after Lake Placid, LA, Atlanta, and Salt Lake. If the prospective bid cities want to feel better about their chances and more certain that they're not wasting their money, then they need to wait until it's actually time for another U.S. Games. No more of this pushing the envelope...

[CanisMinor]

Yeah, archery should be in a very austere setting... Also, you don't see the biathlon target range being placed against a distracting background.

Which is why the next US bid should be:

Tulsa, OK!

[olympian]

after the last minute stadium debacle for 2012, and the negativity the bid created i'd say not in the near future. with chicago, san francisco, L.A. i'll give it to the 3 of them. though i want boston to be able to host but it will be a very monumental task for the city.

[OneTimeOnly]

there is nothing attractive about the LA landscape.

100% true. You live in L.A. for the weather and lifestyle, not how attractive the actual city streets are. It's pretty ugly up close on the ground, especially when it comes to being telegenic for Olympic television.

I wish you the best...and I'd move some of those venues out of the lakefront. Was never sold on that idea and neither was the IOC. Spread them out over the neighborhoods.

Really why? I really liked Chicago's bid a lot once the final bid book was revealed. The OV with private beach right in front of it (unlike Rio's where the athletes would have to be bussed over), the rowing, the sailing, the beach volleyball, all right on the lake? It would have been really nice I think. You don't think so?

P.S. As an aside, imagine the sailing on San Francisco bay, how scenic! Would have to make offerings to mother nature though, to have SF's famous fog take a holiday during games time in general.

[Athensfan]

I liked Chicago's plan too.

Sailing in the SF bay would be amazing.

I agree that LA is not the most beautiful city (unlike Chicago or San Francisco) It has many beautiful spots, but they are islands of beauty and charm floating in a sea of urban mediocrity. Any city gets dressed up for the Games, though, and LA could be improved. The city looked fantastic in '84 and it could again, provided the city and the OCOG committed to making the necessary improvements. It would also be vital to offer clear directions that would guide Olympic visitors to some of those beautiful "islands."