Jump to content

NYC 2024 or 2028


Soaring
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ugh. The stadium was not the problem. Everything else (money disputes, another American Games, revolving door leadership, lack of a story) was the problem.

TOTALLY agree w/ Rols. The next American bid must NOT be in-your-face red, white and blue. It must be a celebration of the world. We are a nation of immigrants and any of the big four can tell that story (NYC, SF, Chicago, LA). The message needs to be, "It's not about US. It's about YOU." More than ever, the Games would be a celebration of global diversity. They would be Games with HEART.

That's a story that would appeal to the IOC. Throw in some meaningful infrastructure improvements and favorable timing for the bid and you're good to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...
  • 1 year later...

What are the thoughts on NYC 2028 now?

I'm definitely for it considering I live in NYC. Regarding a stadium and Olympic park, the short lived 2024 proposal called for an Olympic park in Queens on top of the Sunnyside rail yards. This plan could work but it would be expensive.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm definitely for it considering I live in NYC. Regarding a stadium and Olympic park, the short lived 2024 proposal called for an Olympic park in Queens on top of the Sunnyside rail yards. This plan could work but it would be expensive.

One of the issues with the 2012 proposal is that it was centered around a Manhattan plan. Had it been a Queens plan from the get go, things may have been different - perhaps if it were sold as a means of primarily helping redevelop parts of the outer boroughs. NYC 2012 looked bad b/c they had to change it all last minute. Like you, I believe a Queens park proposal would make for the best attempt. But like Boston, NYC residents have what seems to be an innate cynicism when it comes to these grand proposals. NYC got further along in the process for 2012 than Boston for 2024 but, in both cases, we saw major ultimate public opposition. I'd like to see a NYC games sometime. But I wouldn't put $$$ on it happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A New York is a non-starter. There's no need for a new 80,000 seat stadium that is unless the Jets decide they want their own stadium but there's no way they are getting out of that lease.

The stadium issue sunk the 2012 bid and until either the Mets, Yankees, Giants, or Jets need a new stadium again, it makes no sense to bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A New York is a non-starter. There's no need for a new 80,000 seat stadium that is unless the Jets decide they want their own stadium but there's no way they are getting out of that lease.

The stadium issue sunk the 2012 bid and until either the Mets, Yankees, Giants, or Jets need a new stadium again, it makes no sense to bid.

Or NYC submits a bid with a temporary stadium.

Forgetting for a sec the political forces that sunk the West Side Stadium, the plan there was to build a football stadium that doubled as convention space. That's a pretty creative way to get more use out of a facility that only would get used a handful of times per year and not have to downsize it or tear it down entirely afterwards. So credit the organizers of NYC 2012 for coming up with an idea like that, even though the execution didn't pan out. There are ways to figure out a use for a stadium without either 1) downsizing it to the point you wonder why it got built in the first place or 2) having be truly a temporary facility. Easier said than done of course, but in a city as large as New York, there's a better chance at coming up with a legacy plan than there might be in some other cities. That assuming there's a sensible plan that came together in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The temporary stadium concept is a failed concept.

This. Real estate in this city is far too valuable for a temporary facility with no legacy plan to be any sort of option. It's a complete non-starter because any sort of development plan that doesn't involve a stadium will be far cheaper and a lot more cost-effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hard for something to be a failure when it hasn't been tried. Yes, land is precious in NYC. Which is why it won't be used for something like a T&F stadium. Use the Olympics to clear some land, build a teardown stadium and after the games build something useful on the land

It has been tried, twice. The first is the London Olympic Stadium. Now I wouldn't goes as far as to call it a failure as a permanent tenant was found but the stadium is basically being rebuilt a much higher cost. A better example from the London Olympics is the temporary basketball arena which served its purpose and saved on the costs of a likely white elephant but no use was found for it after the Olympics. If you cannot reuse a 12,000 seat arena, how are you going to reuse a 70-80,000 seat stadium? From my understanding, it was found to simply be way too expensive to transport, reassemble, and finally disassemble the basketball arena again which is why the rumors of it being sent to Glasgow and Rio never materialized.

A far better example of the failure of whole temporary/scaled down idea is the Incheon Asian Games. The Main Asiad Stadium in Incheon was built with 60,000 with plans to scale it down to a 20,000 seat athletics stadium post-Games just as London originally intended. Those plans have been cancelled due to the high costs and having no purposeful plan to reuse the seats that would get removed so now Incheon has massive stadium that has no tenant.

For an Olympics to be viable in the U.S. a city either needs a stadium already in place (Los Angeles) or has a need for a new stadium that can be used without major modifications outside of removing the athletics track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This. Real estate in this city is far too valuable for a temporary facility with no legacy plan to be any sort of option. It's a complete non-starter because any sort of development plan that doesn't involve a stadium will be far cheaper and a lot more cost-effective.

Yup, this. 2012 for NYC was a do or die bid. And that bid has killed any chance NYC can host the games with a proper permanent stadium, for probably 99 years which is the lease that both the NY Giants and NY Jets have signed.

It has been tried, twice. The first is the London Olympic Stadium. Now I wouldn't goes as far as to call it a failure as a permanent tenant was found but the stadium is basically being rebuilt a much higher cost. A better example from the London Olympics is the temporary basketball arena which served its purpose and saved on the costs of a likely white elephant but no use was found for it after the Olympics. If you cannot reuse a 12,000 seat arena, how are you going to reuse a 70-80,000 seat stadium? From my understanding, it was found to simply be way too expensive to transport, reassemble, and finally disassemble the basketball arena again which is why the rumors of it being sent to Glasgow and Rio never materialized.

A far better example of the failure of whole temporary/scaled down idea is the Incheon Asian Games. The Main Asiad Stadium in Incheon was built with 60,000 with plans to scale it down to a 20,000 seat athletics stadium post-Games just as London originally intended. Those plans have been cancelled due to the high costs and having no purposeful plan to reuse the seats that would get removed so now Incheon has massive stadium that has no tenant.

For an Olympics to be viable in the U.S. a city either needs a stadium already in place (Los Angeles) or has a need for a new stadium that can be used without major modifications outside of removing the athletics track.

So what's the best example of a tear-down stadium/arena? Albertville's opening and closing ceremony venue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the London basketball arena was taken down but the parts were never reused. That's my point. It served it's purpose, but the original plans to ship it somewhere (Glasgow or Rio) never materialized, probably because of costs involved. Whatever became of the parts for the arena afterwards I don't know. Doing the same with a temporary stadium of 70-80,000 is much more complicated. As for scaling it down, well, see my post about Incheon.

Albertville's ceremonies stadium was what 30-35,000? That's a lot different that 70-80,000. Plus you have to factor in all the "temporary luxuries" like box suites required the IOC, foreign dignitaries, plus the media need during a SOGs. Not sure Albertville had all these extra amenities as the setup looked very basic. Even if it could be pulled off for SOGs, there's the costs of taking the stadium down and deciding what to do with the parts that have been removed. The costs all add up quickly.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...